NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, my last thread on this subject turned into a discussion between four people (not bad, but I was hoping for more).

Vinyl --- It sounds better than Cassette, CD, and even DvD. It's sound reproduction is truly three-dimensional, and has virtually limitless range. It also lasts much longer than the formats listed above.

If you don't know much, or anything, about records, then ask in this thread. You'll love analogue by the time I'm done with you.

I love vinyl records, just need to find a new needle for my player.

Vinyl is great.

The only thing they lack is the compactness :(

Vinyl is great.

The only thing they lack is the compactness :(

Vinyl rips are great for that, man. I'm listening to Husker Du's "Zen Arcade" double LP on my computer. The sound is incredible.

it's fantastic played with an old-school phonograph

Okay, my last thread on this subject turned into a discussion between four people (not bad, but I was hoping for more).

Vinyl --- It sounds better than Cassette, CD, and even DvD. It's sound reproduction is truly three-dimensional, and has virtually limitless range. It also lasts much longer than the formats listed above.

If you don't know much, or anything, about records, then ask in this thread. You'll love analogue by the time I'm done with you.
While I love analogue recordings you are mistaken by average shelf life as compared to CD … for example Data storage CD’s such as Vertabratem are rated for 100 years at least

(Magnetic storage yes but CD’s have an incredibly long shelf life)

Not to mention the new mass sampling digital that is coming out gets pretty damn close (its not commercial yet)

It's sound reproduction is truly three-dimensional, and has virtually limitless range.

If you don't know much, or anything, about records, then ask in this thread.

Firstly, it doesn't have 'virually limitless range' - it is in fact much more dynamically limited than either CD or even the humble cassette tape, and as far as frequency range goes, there is little practical difference between the various formats. Vinyl favours certain frequencies at the expense of others.

Secondly, what on Earth do you mena by 'sound reproduction is truly three-dimensional'? Are we talking quad here? - if not then 'sound reproduction is truly two-dimensional'.

It also lasts much longer than the formats listed above.

You already know I agree on the sound aspect...

And I agree they certainly last longer than shitty cassettes...

But a properly cared-for CD will last forever. Vinyl tends to degrade with both age and playtime. Ever seen 70 year old vinyl? It crumbles and falls apart when you touch it. CD's will last longer.

Vinyl rips are great for that, man. I'm listening to Husker Du's "Zen Arcade" double LP on my computer. The sound is incredible.
Takes away the idea of vinyl doesn't it? :confused:

While I love analogue recordings you are mistaken by average shelf life as compared to CD … for example Data storage CD’s such as Vertabratem are rated for 100 years at least

(Magnetic storage yes but CD’s have an incredibly long shelf life)

Not to mention the new mass sampling digital that is coming out gets pretty damn close (its not commercial yet)

Vinyl records have been proven to last at least 100 years, with no chemical breakdown. We'll just have to see how those CD's are doing in 100 years.

It may get close, but it still has to emulate the waveform.

While I love analogue recordings you are mistaken by average shelf life as compared to CD … for example Data storage CD’s such as Vertabratem are rated for 100 years at least

They may possibly be rated for 100 years, but they have yet to actually last that long (obvious and banal, but true none the less) - as such there is no firm evidence to show such longevity, compared to vinyl items which have a proven track record of 110 years.

Firstly, it doesn't have 'virually limitless range' - it is in fact much more dynamically limited than either CD or even the humble cassette tape, and as far as frequency range goes, there is little practical difference between the various formats. Vinyl favours certain frequencies at the expense of others.

Secondly, what on Earth do you mena by 'sound reproduction is truly three-dimensional'? Are we talking quad here? - if not then 'sound reproduction is truly two-dimensional'.

1: Uh, no. Not even close.

2: Reverb.

Takes away the idea of vinyl doesn't it? :confused:

A bit, yes, but still, it's far better than something recorded in pure digital.

Vinyl records have been proven to last at least 100 years, with no chemical breakdown. We'll just have to see how those CD's are doing in 100 years.

It may get close, but it still has to emulate the waveform.
Exactly but unlike analogue storage KEEPING the sound clean is actually much more achievable

And format changes are much cleaner as well

But a properly cared-for CD will last forever. Vinyl tends to degrade with both age and playtime. Ever seen 70 year old vinyl? It crumbles and falls apart when you touch it. CD's will last longer.

I've got 78rpms older than that, and they are still in pretty good condition: the flaws on them are the result of mishandling, rather than internal degradation. Certainly some vinyl is badly physically produced, but you are overstating the case here.

But a properly cared-for CD will last forever. Vinyl tends to degrade with both age and playtime. Ever seen 70 year old vinyl? It crumbles and falls apart when you touch it. CD's will last longer.

It all depends on how they're cared for. My grandma has (well, had. she's dead now) some *really* old records (1930's and 1940's), and they play like they're brand-new.

Vinyl records have been proven to last at least 100 years, with no chemical breakdown. We'll just have to see how those CD's are doing in 100 years.

Maybe some that are stored in airtight, completely moisture free conditions have. Normal records that have been through some use...nope, they get very fragile.

A bit, yes, but still, it's far better than something recorded in pure digital.
How? In the end the sampling rate is your limit to waveform emulation so that is still your restriction weather it is done in the studio or by someone else.

1: Uh, no. Not even close.

Evidence?

2: Reverb.

Reverb has absolutely nothing to do with three-dimensionality.

A bit, yes, but still, it's far better than something recorded in pure digital.
Ha! Try to get around that nowadays. Bloody impossible.

It all depends on how they're cared for. My grandma has some *really* old records (1930's and 1940's), and they play like they're brand-new.

I bought a big box of 1930's and 1940's blues and jazz stuff last year. I saved some of it, but most of it was useless, unfortunately. :(

Maybe some that are stored in airtight, completely moisture free conditions have. Normal records that have been through some use...nope, they get very fragile.
Agreed heat ... the angle of your storage ... use can all make a differance
CD's are much less suceptable to use fatigue then vinal records


(dont get me wrong I keep a 400 + collection myself)

How? In the end the sampling rate is your limit to waveform emulation so that is still your restriction weather it is done in the studio or by someone else.

And it is highly likely that the ADCs in a studio are of a much higher quality than the ones used to rip a random reccord out in the real world.

Evidence?



Reverb has absolutely nothing to do with three-dimensionality.

1: www.clearaudio.de

2: Not reverb specifically, though it is much better with analogue recordings. There's just something about vinyl recordings that makes them *deeper*. It's almost as if you're in the recording studio (depending on the production quality).

And it is highly likely that the ADCs in a studio are of a much higher quality than the ones used to rip a random reccord out in the real world.
I agree … that’s why I was wondering why he thought a ripped vinyl recording was better then studio recorded digital


I mean I understand the attraction to vinyl but digital has its own advantages as well

I bought a big box of 1930's and 1940's blues and jazz stuff last year. I saved some of it, but most of it was useless, unfortunately. :(

That sucks. The person you bought it from probably didn't store it correctly...

I agree … that’s why I was wondering why he thought a ripped vinyl recording was better then studio recorded digital


I mean I understand the attraction to vinyl but digital has its own advantages as well

1: I know what I'm talking about --- These vinyl rips sound far better than music that's in a native digital format. They weren't done with haste.

2: It does, of course, but if you want full sound, go with records.

Agreed heat ... the angle of your storage ... use can all make a differance
CD's are much less suceptable to use fatigue then vinal records


(dont get me wrong I keep a 400 + collection myself)

Aye, I like vinyl, but when I come across something old and relatively rare, i'm wary of paying much for it...because in 10 years, it could be worthless. Hell, it could be worthless before I even buy it. No way of telling.

Vinyl does sound better, to a degree. But the quality of your speakers, etc. is probably a more important factor.

As it is, I usually purchase CD's, unless I can get the vinyl new, and then it's only really for the novelty factor. (Most of the time, when listening to music, i'm on the train, etc....vinyl is useless there.)

1: www.clearaudio.de

What specifically on the site?

2: Not reverb specifically, though it is much better with analogue recordings. There's just something about vinyl recordings that makes them *deeper*. It's almost as if you're in the recording studio (depending on the production quality).

Pah. You are now talking in emotional reactions rather than actual inherent qualities: it is true that low mids on vinyl tend to predominate somewhat more than on CD (particularly on a nice valve amp), but that still has nothing to do with 'three-dimensionality'.

That sucks. The person you bought it from probably didn't store it correctly...

Nope, they didn't...they were all packed together in a massive box. I got it all for $3, though.

What specifically on the site?



Pah. You are now talking in emotional reactions rather than actual inherent qualities: it is true that low mids on vinyl tend to predominate somewhat more than on CD (particularly on a nice valve amp), but that still has nothing to do with 'three-dimensionality'.

1: The phonostages, the tonearms, and the cartridges.

2: I guess, but still, the sound is superior, whatever the case.

1: I know what I'm talking about --- These vinyl rips sound far better than music that's in a native digital format. They weren't done with haste.

I will say that I prefer the sound of AAA rather than DDD, but squashing a vinyl record through a ripping process is inevitably going to degrade the sound quality (even if not noticeably).

I mean I understand the attraction to vinyl but digital has its own advantages as well

Bah! Digital music! I jus downloaded my vinyl collection to my portable player. *brings in pack mule* I'm cruisin' in style. :cool:

Nope, they didn't...they were all packed together in a massive box. I got it all for $3, though.

$3 isn't too bad for a few things that might be able to be salvaged :p

I will say that I prefer the sound of AAA rather than DDD, but squashing a vinyl record through a ripping process is inevitably going to degrade the sound quality (even if not noticeably).

Yeah, I know. That's what I'm saying. Even so, it's still superior to pure digital.

1: The phonostages, the tonearms, and the cartridges.

Maybe I'm blind, but I can't see a single reference to the frequency range of vinyl in my quick examination of their products.

2: I guess, but still, the sound is superior, whatever the case.

Possibly, but why not just track down a copy of the record on vinyl and put it on a good turntable?

Maybe I'm blind, but I can't see a single reference to the frequency range of vinyl in my quick examination of their products.



Possibly, but why not just track down a copy of the record on vinyl and put it on a good turntable?

1: You should've probably read the information about their products. They show the whitepaper statistics, and I think after looking at their most expensive phonostage, you'll be surprised.

2: Well, I'm definitely going to do that, but... I don't have the money right now :p.

Yeah, I know. That's what I'm saying. Even so, it's still superior to pure digital.

Most of the problems ascribed to 'pure digital music' these days are either a holdover reaction to the quite frankly dreadful bits of technology from the eighties or are actually matters of taste in response to other production and studio practices (frex, the tendency to maximise everything in a mix and then run it all through a multiband compressor till it sounds as flat as a Herb Albert record).

1: You should've probably read the information about their products. They show the whitepaper statistics, and I think after looking at their most expensive phonostage, you'll be surprised.

Possibly, would you a do a cut-and-paste for us, as I find the site quite frankly almost impossible to navigate?

Most of the problems ascribed to 'pure digital music' these days are either a holdover reaction to the quite frankly dreadful bits of technology from the eighties or are actually matters of taste in response to other production and studio practices (frex, the tendency to maximise everything in a mix and then run it all through a multiband compressor till it sounds as flat as a Herb Albert record).

True, but even still, the percussion (highs, mainly) tend to break up on CD's, and even on DvD's, they're not as clean and smooth as records.

I bought a big box of 1930's and 1940's blues and jazz stuff last year.

Want to name some names for us? Any forgotten treasures?

Possibly, would you a do a cut-and-paste for us, as I find the site quite frankly almost impossible to navigate?

Balanced Reference Phonostage

Stromversorgung Dual-Spannungsversorgung mit vier Spannungen pro Kanal, umschaltbar 115/230V mittels Schalter im Gerät
Signal / Rauschabstand 75 dB(A) bei G = 60 dB
Verstärkung (1kHz) Einstellbar von 30- 63 dB in 3 dB-Schritten mittels Stufenschalter
Maximale Ausgangsspannung 11 Vrms
Klirrfaktor <0,001%
Eingangswiderstand Beliebig wählbar bis max. 100 kOhm
Ausgangswiderstand 50 Ohm
Entzerrung nach RIAA- Standard, Abweichung max. 0,05dB
Frequenzgang 10 Hz – 100 kHz - 0,1 dB
Eingänge Spannungsversorgung 9-poliger SUB-D-Stecker
Ausgänge Unsymmetrisch Cinch
Maße (B/T/H in mm) ca. 380 x 220 x 58 (Phonostage)
Gewicht Ca. 3,4 kg ( Netzteil )
Garantie 10 Jahre

Er, their English site isn't working, but you should be able to make this out (Babelfish fucks it up, so I didn't bother).

True, but even still, the percussion (highs, mainly) tend to break up on CD's, and even on DvD's, they're not as clean and smooth as records.

Its not so much that cymbal sounds and the like tend to break up on CDs, rather that they sound excessively clean to me: but then I grew up in the age of vinyl.

Want to name some names for us? Any forgotten treasures?
Can't remember them all. I bought it because I noticed it contained some Huddie Ledbetter (Ledbelly)...thought they might be worth something :)

I put the ones that survived in the cupboard...but as i said, most of it was in a pretty bad way. I had to throw a lot out. :(

I agree, nothing beats vinyl. I still own quite a few records, but no longer have anything to play them on. :(

Frequenzgang 10 Hz – 100 kHz - 0,1 dB

And the relevance of this when the human ear is limited to 20Hz-20kHz?

How many speakers do you own that can actually produce 10 Hz frequencies? Even a top of the range sub for live applications is only rated down to about 35Hz.

Can't remember them all. I bought it because I noticed it contained some Huddie Ledbetter (Ledbelly)...

Nice. One of the Lomax recordings on Folkways? A nice item to have regardless of monetary value.

And the relevance of this when the human ear is limited to 20Hz-20kHz?

How many speakers do you own that can actually produce 10 Hz frequencies? Even a top of the range sub for live applications is only rated down to about 35Hz.

1: Well, it still processes more sound. There *is* a difference.

2: Not too many, but even on cheap speakers, you can tell the difference. A damn good pair of headphones will usually do the job (top-of-the-line Sennheisers are rated for 15hz - 35khz). Still, even with mid-range PC speakers, you can hear a difference.

1: Well, it still processes more sound. There *is* a difference.


There is also a difference between a dog whistle and a french horn, but dog whistle music hasn't really been a major factor in twentieth century culture has it? (with one obvious and notable exeption).

2: Not too many, but even on cheap speakers, you can tell the difference.

I challenge this: in producing vinyl the frequencies above and below 20Hz and 20kHz (in fact a somewhat narrower band than this) are rolled off sharply. The frequencies you might be able to hear on cheap speakers are not at the limits of human hearing, instead there is a tendency for vinyl to have a differene emphasis on certain frequencies within the audible range - and this can be reproduced digitally (although not on CD).


EDIT: yeah - the 'C' key on my keyboard is giving me grief.

Aye, I like vinyl, but when I come across something old and relatively rare, i'm wary of paying much for it...because in 10 years, it could be worthless. Hell, it could be worthless before I even buy it. No way of telling.

Vinyl does sound better, to a degree. But the quality of your speakers, etc. is probably a more important factor.

As it is, I usually purchase CD's, unless I can get the vinyl new, and then it's only really for the novelty factor. (Most of the time, when listening to music, i'm on the train, etc....vinyl is useless there.)
Agreed ... I usualy when I am in my truck or by my computer and then I keep my collection on hard drive ... I am up to 100 gb lol