94 posts
So curious, does anyone here listen to music on vinyl? I just broke out my grandfather's old record player and have had a blast trying to find some of my favorite albums. Apparently it is becoming a new-old trend around the Atlanta area because there seem to be a lot of vintage vinyl shops popping up left and right.
I keep hearing about many that are going back to vinyl. I can only think that low resolution mp3's are causing them to sound ok since they suck and the grooves wear down.
;D. They WHAT??? Geez Craig, with all your money and all your gear, I figured you would have heard a real stereo system by now, and would know better than this! :o
I still have all my vinyl albums in the attic (around 1,000 of them) and I haven't played them in years......and I don't miss vinyl one bit. Cumbersome, easily damaged and despite what some people claim, they do not sound better than cd etc. embrace technology and move forward not back.
Um, no... Vinyl sucks. When I did have my really nice stereo I remember playing a CD of something I also had on vinyl. The difference was day and night, so much so that I soon sold my entire collection of over 1,800 albums.
Then your turntable, cartridge and stylus are in fact what SUCKED! ;)
Jon — Sep 06, 2013I still have all my vinyl albums in the attic (around 1,000 of them) and I haven't played them in years......and I don't miss vinyl one bit. Cumbersome, easily damaged and despite what some people claim, they do not sound better than cd etc. embrace technology and move forward not back.
I have a big crate of vinyl in my shed. Most of those LP's are pretty scratched up, and I was able to glom most of the stuff on them from torrent sites, I actually bought many hundreds of albums back in the day so having a copy in digital form is actually OK as far as I am concerned. I sure ain't going backwards and buying a turn table, amplifier, and speakers. That ain't gonna happen.....
Love vinyl, it has a warmth and feel digital rarely captures. :)
Tobe — Sep 07, 2013Love vinyl, it has a warmth and feel digital rarely captures. :)
No analog recording can capture what the Pro Tools HD systems can capture, what the folks call warmth and feel, sound dull and old to me. The truth is; digital captures more of the signal content especially a Pro Tools HD rig. You hear things that you never heard in the old analog stuff.
No offense amigo that is just my $.02. I have been in a friends pro tools HD studio, and the sound is so clear, so defined as to be astounding..... I have also owned a professional high quality 30 IPs tape deck system with a British board, absolute state of the art back in the late 80's and there is no comparison truthfully.
I don't believe in the mystique of vinyl... I think at best it sounds "different" than digital. Of course, there's a fucking tiny crystal bouncing up and down on a bunch of pits in a groove! But there is NOTHING that compares to the aesthetics of vinyl. One of my local coffee shops recently switched from a digital system to an old sweet record player with an old solid state amp. It sounds great, I mean, it's a coffee shop so Honestly only the really poor records with scratches and dust sound crappy.
But it is just such a joy to walk in there, and see the record spinning on the phonograph, and to thumb through the albums and enjoy the artwork and the feel of it. It's something I truly missed with CDs (I would sometimes buy records of CDs I had to get the artwork) and now I never even see it with MP3. Which is okay because no one probably puts the kind of thought they used to into album art anyway... but aesthetically there is nothing that compares.
Now THAT part of vinyl I do miss.
You almost felt ripped off when you bought an album with shitty artwork...
I think I might just vomit. Are you kidding me? I'll have to somehow check that out. Do you mean with a real expensive player or what?
Hookbender — Sep 11, 2013I think I might just vomit. Are you kidding me? I'll have to somehow check that out. Do you mean with a real expensive player or what?
I can't find a post above yours that this seems to be a reply to. Which one are you referring to? :-?
Tobe...."Love vinyl, it has a warmth and feel digital rarely captures."
Sorry Craig, guys.
I just can't imagine vinyl sounding anything close to as good as my MP3 player, with music recorded in 320kbs??? or whatever, through my monitors. Can it come close somehow?
:og :o. Seriously? You can't imagine a record sounding as good as an mp3??? :-X
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 12, 2013 :og :o. Seriously? You can't imagine a record sounding as good as an mp3??? :-X
Well, maybe a new record and a low resolution .mp3 might be a good battle (except for the lack of clicks and pops on the .mp3). ;)
OMG! you guys.... I refused to get into a debate about this. I'll leave it at this. I could bring any one of you into my home right now and say bring any MP3 player you have, bring the best CD player you have, and nothing you bring will even sound remotely close to the realism of my dropping my Sheffield half speed master recording of Dark Side Of the Moon" or the Sheffield James Newton Howard and Friends album, on my turntable and playing it for you. And my turntable/arm/cartridge/stylus is very good, but nowhere near the "best."
Would we get to play that same master on our mp3 or CD player? That might be a fair comparison... ;)
DTR, it might sound "better" but it won't sound "more accurate." You might prefer the way the same song sounds on vinyl vs CD, but it won't be closer to the original master. I always used to prefer taking my CDs and recording them onto cassette tapes, with Dolby C, at really loud volume, so the tape saturated. It sounded way the hell better to me listening back to the tape than the CD. But it wasn't more accurate.
I own 2 pair of monitors. I keep on set in my office and 1 set in the living room. I listen to those speakers and a Cowan MP3 player encoded in Apple lossless and it sounds excellent. I have a expensive headphone amp I use for the volume and, IMO, only a better/more expensive pair of monitors would sound better. I don't see how anyone could listen to, records. No way they sound better.
I don't know, I've not listened to a record since, well, a while ago. ;D As in well over 30yrs. ;D
I remember when tapes came out. I thought they were the shit. ;D Then CD's were the best. Now, mp3's sound as good, but you can bring all your music in your front pocket. How cool is that? Use too, ;D, if we went to a friends house and wanted to listen to music, we had to listen to what that stupid fucker wanted to here. (back in the record days)
You guys need to remember who you're talking to! :D
oh, YOU GUYS!!!! ;D
Charger, I know you've claimed to hear some high end analog systems in prior discussions, but keep in mind, I have no idea what you've heard. But, you do say "maybe they sound better but they aren't more accurate." And, the initial thing that sparked this was someone asking how they "sounded." Full disclosure here: If you go buy a cheap turntable with a junk cartridge and stylus, it WON'T SOUND better than a good CD on a good CD player. But if you get even into decent stuff, and have good, well cared for albums, you will START to see the difference. If you get into the higher end, it WILL sound better.
There are junk albums, (sound wise) just like there are junk CDs. I'm talking good recordings.
It's funny that even the giants who came up with the CD format were immediately changing how the players worked just one year after the "perfect sound forever" ads about the first gen. players. It only took a few weeks before higher end audio people were BLASTING them for only using 16 bit format. It has been rumored for years that something FAR higher in resolution would come to market. Music DVDs, and several other formats have been discussed. I don't have time to get into all of this.
Just pick up a copy of The Absolute Sound or even Stereophile. While they will be bragging about the latest greatest CD playback systems, you will later see them comparing them to middle of the road turntable/arm/cartridge systems in terms of sound quality.
There are digital systems that can approach this level of sound quality but NOT once it's dumbed down to the CD level. (Even 10 years ago the highest resolution digital systems could not approach a quality analog system, btw). This is the opnion of the experts in the field! I'm only confirming that my experience follows it exactly.
I also acknowledge that the best sounds take LOTS of money, that you MUST have good records and you DO have to take care of them or they wear. (Wear is actually very minimal if cared for properly).
Craig, the only thing I can say to your example is NO. You can't record that album onto a CD and it sound as good. I have the master recording album AND CD of Dark Side, and of James Newton Howard and friends, and several others. Even with my "middle of the upper end" playback gear, it's pretty easy to hear which is better.
Roy, is it as convenient? not even close. I have over 6,000 high res MP3s on my Zen. That again, has nothing to do with sound.
I no longer have a dedicated listening room with a system meticulously set up for perfect reproduction (including sound insulation where needed, speakers placed to the fractions of an inch, sound dampers of many types in multiple places in the system, etc. And I realize that most people NEVER have anything like that or even hear it elsewhere. If you don't though, you can't really make assumptions about the high end. It's like saying "your PRS doesn't sound any better than my MIM Strat through my Peavy Bandit." ;D OK, but through my Budda SD there's a BIG difference! Through a Bad Cat or Matchless, even bigger...
DTR, do you believe a recording is more accurate played back through an LP or digitally? Because if you believe the LP is more accurate, there is simply no reason to discuss it further. I don't care if the needle is crafted from the Hope diamond, and the LP is made from 220-gram holistically purified ultra-virgin vinyl from the vinyl forests on Jupiter. The LP might sound infinitely better to you, because how a thing sounds is subjective. But it can never be more accurate. Digital is a bit-accurate reproduction of the original. Vinyl is a physical medium.
I happen to like listening to records and no, I'm not going to spend a shitload of money to get the audiophile experience. At that point, why not just go all the way, grow a hipster mustache, ride a fixie bike, and discuss pinot noir vintages in haughty tones? I'm not talking about taking a $5000 system and comparing it to a $200 iPod. I'm talking about physics. The physics of a digital medium vs a physical medium are not disputable. Some people still prefer analog tape to digital recording, too, but it's not because analog tape is more accurate, it's because analog mediums impart a sound.
Makes sense to me. Kinda. ;D
I listen to lossless through a real good mp3 player through my monitors and it sounds great to me. No eq on the player. Flat. I hear shit I never heard on any record or home stereo system. At very high quality, I think. I listen to Blues mostly and the simple blues music sounds awesome. You can easily pick out the few instruments and hear all thats done. I'm amazed at that. Add some treble and it livens it up a tad. I am a monitor freak, and of course, a headphone freak as well. ;D ;D
Hi Motherfuckers. I still have my vinyl collection, maybe 1000-1200 albums, I have also acquired my favorites on digital. I hear things on the digital recordings that I have never heard on the vinyl, I wonder if it was always there or has it been remastered. The thing that I like about vinyl is you get a record, a cover, maybe some sleeve art, lyric, who played what on each track. I enjoy sitting down with a drink or a smoke looking at the album cover etc whilst listening to the music. I always check the vacant area near the label on a vinyl album, there are a lot of one liners etched there. Maybe I'm getting old and nostalgic, but I do enjoy kicking back with vinyl, it brings back a lot of (hazy through the smoke ) memories.
"Hi Motherfuckers."
;D ;D ;D
DTR - I think the problem is that you seem to have bought into the audiophile culture of bullshit. Do you buy expensive power cables, too? You know those don't do shit to make things sound better, right?
The Absolute Sound and Stereophile are two beautiful and well-written rags designed to sell the frou-frou audio experience to people. They set science aside in service of their advertisers - companies who basically sell audio snake oil to people unconcerned with reality.
You may LIKE it better, but that's all.
Tripper
P.S. I like the vinyl experience, too, but I'd rather have the convenience and consistently superior audio quality of digital files, thanks.
So no oxygen in your cables leads to a lack of oxygen reaching the brain? :D ;D
Ok, I was trying to let sleeping dogs lie...But you guys know I just can't bite my tongue when people start saying I don't know what I'm talking about or better yet, am just full of $hit.
I won't further discuss this as it's clearly pointless. I will give you an analogy that seems appropriate here. This is like back in the day when Pontiac had the WS-6 Trans Am and it was faster and cornered better than a Ferrari. One of the guys who bought one kept saying "It handles better than a Ferrari. There are skidpad numbers to prove it." No, it doesn't! ON A SKIDPAD it measures slightly better. That does not mean it "handles" better and it doesn't. On a perfect circle skidpad it can hold slightly better, do to stiff suspension and big rubber. Try some switchbacks and see which actually "handles better. If you haven't driven one, you don't even know what you're talking about, so you aren't qualified to comment." Same here! How do you even feel qualified to make comments and insults about people who HAVE heard better systems when you haven't even heard them? Because on paper digital is "better?" LMAO Aren't you the same group of guys who use tube amps? ;) Aren't you the same group of guys in music forums posting about how digital is getting really good and MAYBE some day will sound as good as tubes? And how it is just now getting close? LMAO!!!! Hmmmm......
Since this thread seems to have taken a bit of an "poking" tone, I will just say it like it is. You guys haven't driven the Ferrari. You don't know what you're ... Oh, you can figure out the rest. ;)
I'm thinking the mystique of vinyl comes down to it never sounding the same twice... I mean, it's mechanical so there's always going to be a slight difference when you listen to the same thing at different times (motor variances, heat/humidity, voltage irregularities etc). and that makes it more interesting to the ear/listener who has heard it more than once.
or, it's perceived to be better because it's not accurate -- just like tubes/analog.
just my theory.
Sheep, curious about what makes you think it's not accurate? This is one of the points I differ from Charger, Craig, and Trip. Analog DOES have some things to deal with that "add" noise in source playback. NO question that ticks, pops and other things can happen, but these are "additions." Meaning, if I have a really good, clean fresh album, a high end playback system, and it has a tiny bit of dust, it will tick or pop a little when the stylus skips over it. Get that. But other than that, why the perception that it's not otherwise accurate?
One thing is frequency response. Digital can make claims of +/- .01 dB from 0hz to 40K hz. or whatever, and analog can't make claims like that. So, they will say "digital is more accurate." Analog systems can be pretty flat within the normal range of human hearing. But frequency response has nothing to do with transparency and realism. THe first CD players were measurably flat. They also sounded like absolute crap! HARSH, sibilant, and 90 other forms of bad sounding. But they were "clean." No extraneous noises, ticks, pops, skips, tape hiss, etc. I remember the day I heard the first CD at the store and the "perfect sound forever" sign next to the new CD player. I looked at the guy I bought some of my stuff form and said "you honestly think that sounds even close to the turntable you sold me a year ago?" His answer was "no it doesn't but you don't have all the hassle of cleaning records, lubing your stylus, wear on the album, and you can take CDs in the car with you!"
Respectfully disagree on the guitar tube amp comparison, in that those amps do color intentionally, while high end playback systems strive for the opposite. However, both have a warmth and realism even when colored (as with our guitar amps) that is better than digital.
Someone's still in major denial. ;D
try this:
make a recording of your system playing a vinyl record. then do it again.
take those two recordings and line them up so they start at the same time.
flip the phase on the first one.
play them together and bounce that track.
now, do the same with a digital source instead of a turntable...
which of those final two tracks is more silent?
should settle the debate.
(I think it's not as accurate just because of the physics... there's no way an electric motor can produce the exact same distribution of rpms at each instant over a length of time... more than once. each time the motor runs, it's a one-off performance of "trying to maintain 33 1/3 rpm" - it's never exactly the same. digital is always the same)
ironsheep — Sep 20, 2013try this:
make a recording of your system playing a vinyl record. then do it again.
take those two recordings and line them up so they start at the same time.
flip the phase on the first one.
play them together and bounce that track.
now, do the same with a digital source instead of a turntable...
which of those final two tracks is more silent?
should settle the debate.
You're asking Howie to make a recording???!
lol, true... but it could be completed as a thought experiment instead! heh.
Sheep, I know what you are saying but now you are taking "their" path. Discussing things that aren't "sound." :)
Here's a question for all of you. Would you rather have a possible tick or pop here and there, and maybe a bit of noise between tracks, but have better sound, or would you rather have silence between tracks, no ticks or pops, and it not sound as good? And so far, nobody has bothered to argue that the sound of analog isn't better, just that digital is more accurate. And in some ways it IS more accurate. But reproduction is all about realism. Keep in mind, even the people who originally told you that digital and CDs were perfect, have for years now admitted that the CD format is too low in resolution and another standard is needed. DVDR or some other format with higher sampling rates etc. will get much better. And much closer.... to the realism you've been able to get in analog for several decades. This is not audiophile BS, this is what the people who MAKE CD players are saying. I saw a quote from Sony 3 years ago promising the next generation of digital music (which hasn't arrived yet as people jockey over the format) "will approach the resolution and realism of the finest in analog playback systems." That has to be very close to an exact quote and that was from SONY! Not "The Absolute Sound." :) I found it funny at the time, that even then they didn't say "will beat" or "will be better than." They said "will approach."
So, Gen 1 CD players were touted as "perfect sound forever." A year later a major improvement was made. Constant improvement since. But the wall was hit years ago in CDs. Without another format, just give me a SOTA and a Grado and I'm good.
Also, I will say again and then stop repeating myself. If you have a cheap turntable/cartrige/stylus and old worn out records that aren't clean and cared for, I'm CERTAIN that it won't sound as good as your run of the mill CD player. But that's not what we're talking about here.
I prefer analog to digital because it's not accurate.
arguing that analog is more accurate, in any way, is just a loser. it's axiomatic... digital defines accurate reproduction of source. how accurate was the source? no idea, but the digital replays are always 100% accurate reproductions of that source, every time.
arguing that analog sounds better than digital... is about opinion. that's a free-for-all.
"to my eyes, a tape measure gives a more accurate measure of this object than a digitally calibrated laser"... no.
"to my eyes, a tape measure looks better when measuring this object than a laser"... maybe so!
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 20, 2013I remember the day I heard the first CD at the store and the "perfect sound forever" sign next to the new CD player. I looked at the guy I bought some of my stuff form and said "you honestly think that sounds even close to the turntable you sold me a year ago?"
Exhibit A, B, and C.
You're still arguing that vinyl is MORE ACCURATE, using an argument that is completely constructed on the idea that it SOUNDS BETTER.
My Tascam 4-track cassette recorder sounded brilliant on everything it recorded. I have never got anything to instantly sound that good without heavy effects in Pro Tools, or any other DAW. Was the Tascam more accurate? NO. It SOUNDED BETTER.
I'm fine with your argument (although I find 99% of audiophile nonsense to be utter crap) that vinyl
SOUNDS better (to you). You also think that Silent Lucidity is a great ballad, and I'm fine with you having your OPINION on that, too. I am never going to agree that
vinyl is more accurate, and that doesn't qualify as an opinion. That is FACT.
And another thing. You keep trotting out the fact that early CDs had poor clocking, and inaccurate motors, and no over-sampling or error correction as "proof" that the CD is somehow crappy and inaccurate... Would you like to compare the infancy of CDs to the infancy of LPs? Those hand-cranked wax cylinder phonograph records really sound fat and warm and accurate, don't they...
ironsheep — Sep 20, 2013I prefer analog to digital because it's not accurate.
"to my eyes, a tape measure gives a more accurate measure of this object than a digitally calibrated laser"... no.
"to my eyes, a tape measure looks better when measuring this object than a laser"... maybe so!
+1! exactly.
Just to add an opinion, I think CD's sound better. :)
I originally came upon this opinion when I had a kick-ass stereo system and large speakers (not the subwoofer and satellites I went to later). I used to hang the big speakers upside-down so you could really hear the music and, since bass is omni-directional, it put the bass up off the floor where it was causing "neighbor" issues. I played an album then, immediately, played the exact same material as a CD (which I had just bought) and boxed up my records soon after. All of the noise on the records became so audible after that comparison, that it was all I could hear from then on.
Add all of that to the fact that I used to have to buy multiple copies of my favorite records because I kept flattening them and, well, there you go.
Why not ask mastering engineers who master vinyl?
http://www.emusician.com/techniques/0768/mastering-vinyl/134677
Most people don't realize that the distance around the inside of a 12-inch record is about half the distance than around the outside, Golden explains. As the distance around each revolution decreases, the high frequencies become harder for a playback stylus to read.
As a result, the inner tracks will sound duller than the outer tracks. The high frequencies simply can't be reproduced the same as if they were cut on the outside of the disc, Golden adds.
WHAT?!!! But Vinyl is amazing and perfect! FML!
In addition, there's a direct correlation between program length and loudness: the shorter a record is, the louder it can be. There is only so much room to cut the groove, Golden explains. The longer the time per side, the smaller the groove needs to be, and the lower the volume must be to make it fit and to prevent skipping.
Many of the engineers I spoke with noted that a wider frequency and dynamic range can be cut into a vinyl master than can be reproduced in playback. For example, extreme transients and high frequencies will distort because the stylus cannot properly track them in the disc's grooves.
Sibilance, the high-frequency noise burst that you get when the letters s, f, and t are emphasized, is a major issue that mastering engineers encounter. Problematic sibilants typically fall in the 6 to 12 kHz range, Golden observes. Because a CD can reproduce it without trouble, it isn't recognized as a problem area until you decide to make a vinyl record."
And there's more. The RIAA curve, handling of low end, handling all the high end in modern recordings, limitations to dynamic range depending on the length of the material on a side of an LP... all stuff that is a simple result of a physical medium versus a digital medium. The fact is "records" are mostly recorded on digital equipment, mastered on digital equipment... it's now trying to simulate a digital source on a physical medium. Only your final stage is analog. And the final analog stage is a physical medium that requires significant changes to the source material to work on the medium.
Whether you want to accept the facts or not, they are the facts.
Thing is very simply really. To the ear, many systems can sound great, but not accurate. One may add tons of bass, for example, that wasn't intended in the recording. (Bose shit)
I had a pa system that sounded so damn good is was pitiful when turned up fairly loud, after some things and a few beer, but listen to that same loudness on the same system the next day sober, sounded like shit. My ears couldn't even stand it sober.
Take 5 different brand monitors with as close to the same specs as possible and listen to the same song on each pair and you WILL hear differences.
My point is, cd's are accurate. High bit rate digital music, 320 or higher, is accurate. What you hear on anything you listen on is not actually accurate. Why? Because it's amplified, altered, by an amp of some sort. Everything is.
So, that being said, only the specs can attest to accuracy. And the specs say, and common sense as well, say that amplifying sound through a needle on a record player, played on a record player, with the sound going through the needle, through the wires, to get to the amplifier, and then through the wires to get to the speakers, is just inferior. Plan and simple.
With a mp3 player and monitors, you cut down on distortion, for example. Dust doesn't get on an mp3. If a mp3 is played 100, 000 times, it doesn't lose any quality that you can here, accuracy.
IMO, please note that..... accuracy is only obtained by listening to a band, for example, live. Because you hear exactly what the band is playing in a live situation in it's entirety. If you hear something you don't like, it's still accurate because it's not recorded and amplified. It's just amplified, the good and bad you hear.
IMO, though a lot sounds great, if you want accuracy, listen to live music. Really doesn't matter what you listen trough. You hear the good and the mistakes, they aren't covered up or rerecorded to sound perfect. Absolute perfection in a song of choice..... is that really accurate?
Sound is simply subjective, as in what you hear. You've heard great playing on a guitar, for example, but didn't like the tone/sound, the sound part is subjective, the accuracy isn't.
Sound quality is actually judged by everyone who hears it. There is no perfect sound and their is no absolutes. It's what you like, the way you like to hear it. You play blues trough a old vintage amp because you "like" the way it sounds, although a modern guitar player playing trough a 2013 amp with better, (altered) sound actually sounds better to him. The modern player. Has nothing to do with accuracy really, does it? Live is accurate. It is what it is. Thats accurate. I would rather hear my favorite guitar player play live with emotion and feeling than hear him on a perfect sounding cd. That, to me, a cd recorded perfectly sound good, but isn't accurate. Thats just me. I think playing, minus feeling and emotion, isn't really accurate.
This is a very subjective subject. IMO.
Actually Charger and Sheep, you are still missing my point. I must not be making it very well. I cited the area of frequency response as an example of A) one area where digital is more accurate and B) on area all digital proponants cite as proving it sounds better. My pint is, there are WAY more factors than that in how something sounds AND it is not the inaccuracy of analog (in this exaple, less than prefectly flat response) that makes it sound better. On killer sounding cartridge might have a slight rise in freq. response on a certain treble area. A competitor might be down a dB in a similar range. Both will sound better than a CD. Both will sound slightly different due to the response difference and neither will sound better only because its not ruler flat. Its other factors.
And Sheep, again I agree with preferring analog in guitar BECAUSE of colorations. And in high end stereo, i disagree as to that being why it sounds better. Its not euphonic colorations, masking of frquency responses or other "inaccuracies" that make it better.
All i can say is, find a local high end store that knows what they are doing. Go in and listen. You wont leave thinking it sounds better due to colorations or analog sugar coating. :)
Charger, I was never talking about modern D/D/A records...
And everything you posted is common knowledge and is either A) applicable to low or moderate quality playback systems or B) is known and dealt with in the process.
Heck its even EASIER to recognize a poor or mediocre recording on a my turntable than it would be on your CD player. But the good ones... No comparison. (Again, unless you have a modern, very high end cd playback system. In fact, last i heard, there was NO stand alone CD player at this level yet. Only a separate player, DAC/clocking etc. systems
I guess we're talking about different things.
I don't understand how analog can ever be "accurate" simply because it is never the same twice. even if maintenance is maximized, it won't be perfect - perfection is not possible. If I play a song... then play it again... and they are different in some small way - which was the accurate one? either? If I play an mp3... and then play it again... my system gets the same stream of 1's and 0's both times. the source material is identical. after that, there are inaccuracies introduced by the analog portion of the system which allow for some variance performance to performance (amplifier, speaker etc.) - but the source is the same - that's not true with vinyl or tape.
You seem to be saying that these inaccuracies are unavoidable since material has to be converted to and from digital both when it's created (ignoring purely digital music for the moment) and each time it's listened to anyway, so it's of the utmost importance to maximize accuracy in, not only the digital conversion, but also the (unavoidably) analog playback system. even if we get digital microphones... we'd still need speakers. in any event, this leaves a need for high end audio systems to accurately reproduce source material.
I'm thinking about the principle of accuracy - you're thinking about the practice.
fair enough?
even so, I think you should rethink the vinyl part of the equation. if you took the best turntable in the world and the most pristine record - it would be wise to make a digital recording of the first play through because it will never sound exactly like that again... but that digital copy, even with some inaccuracy in the conversion process, will reproduce that exact event (including inaccuracies, but exactly the same inaccuracies, not random new ones) - for as long as it exists.
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 21, 2013Charger, I was never talking about modern D/D/A records...
And everything you posted is common knowledge and is either A) applicable to low or moderate quality playback systems or B) is known and dealt with in the process.
It certainly doesn't seem like it's common knowledge, given that the entirety of this thread you spent telling us that analog is more accurate.
Remember when you said "But reproduction is all about realism."
Now I'm asking, what is
realism? To me, realism is the accurate reproduction of the master. To you, it's not. That's two different versions of realism.
And your argument that there is no CD player that sounds as good as a good record player is just hogwash. There are audiphiles making CD players, too, with killer converters, and amazing clocking, etc. To you, it's just a blanket statement. Analog's just better. That's not factual, or even perceptual. That's just bias.
It just depends on so much. (what you hear)
Speakers make a huge difference. What you play it through makes a huge difference. What you've convinced yourself sounds better, usually does, to you. Even how the music is recorded makes a difference in what you hear on your choice for the music, or whatever.
Why would anyone knowingly play an album, or cd..... that was recorded in analog on a digital system and argue is sounds better? Why would anyone play a digitally recorded cd or album on a analog system? And argue it sounds better? If it's recorded in analog, how could a digital system make it sound better? Why convert signals if they don't have to be to sound the best it can sound?
The problem with a record is, you get 1 play through of the best it can sound. After that, that same record wears, and gets worse everytime you touch it.
I haven't found any viable evidence to support your claim that analog sounds better than digital. And really, even if their were some evidence, the advantages of digital music across the board would nullify any nod for analog by leaps and bounds.
I don't think theirs anyway analog beats digital. And I don't think you could ever prove it.
I've heard that a record produces a warm, rich sound, as compared to digital. I promise you, by changing the speakers alone, I could fuck that theory up big time.