Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Vinyl vs CD.. here we go again (Read 8431 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Vinyl vs CD.. here we go again

Reply #25 –
Quote from: Groove on
I have something of a problem with the apparent consensus here that vinyl snap, crackle and pop defects are an inevitability.

They will (inevitably) develop at some point. That's a fact.
But the part about these audible defects producing awful listening experiences is totally subjective, therefore valid for each subject and pointless to dispute.

I said in my first post that I haven't heard vinyl in years - approx. 35 or more years - but last weekend, I had the pleasure of finding a record I used to listen when I was a kid - 7ish years old - in an online streaming service I am trialling. I was so glad to find it there as I had been looking for it in other comparable services without luck. One of the songs that starts quietly had noticeable pops and clicks, so I presume it was a digital copy of a wear vinyl. I was (subjectively) OK with that. I also thought I could hear changes in the "reproduction rate", as if the spinning speed of the turntable used to play the vinyl during recording wasn't constant. I liked that too! But what impressed me most was that despite the lesser quality attributes of the record - compared to a typical CD - it was (subjectively again) an unique, unharmful and enjoyable experience.

Re: Vinyl vs CD.. here we go again

Reply #26 –
It isn't a binary decision for music lovers. Only audiophiles et al.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Vinyl vs CD.. here we go again

Reply #27 –
Quote from: Glenn Gundlach on
I don't think you actually "lived" with vinyl with no alternative storage. You LEARN all the myriad sonic crap that can happen on LPs

Are you talking to me?  To ME?  LOL!

Condescending and totally wide of the mark, although I can tell you yourself believe you have Jedi like powers of perception and second sight.  Like I said, LOL.

Re: Vinyl vs CD.. here we go again

Reply #29 –
Quote from: Groove on
Quote from: Glenn Gundlach on
I don't think you actually "lived" with vinyl with no alternative storage. You LEARN all the myriad sonic crap that can happen on LPs

Are you talking to me?  To ME?  LOL!

Condescending and totally wide of the mark, although I can tell you yourself believe you have Jedi like powers of perception and second sight.  Like I said, LOL.


I didn't find his comments at all condescending.  Rather they were spot-on, and I agree entirely.  I also lived with vinyl without alternative, until the early 1980s, but not only at home, in my profession as well.  I cannot begin to tell the lengths we went to to get the best quality reproduction out of it, only to be smacked down by inherent flaws.  It was a broadcast facility with a record library of over 40K discs, and a dual-platter KMAL record cleaner, SP10 turntables, V15 V cartridges, SME arms, excellent preamps and we took the trouble to verify accurate RIAA response.  And it still was vinyl in all it's imperfect glory.

Yes, vinyl can sound very good, truly amazing given what's actually going on, and the mastering masters of old really knew their stuff.  But that doesn't mean it's not roundly beaten by a system that replicates the input signal exactly.  The only question is, how you evaluate the goal of each system.

But dealing with vinyl is a very different experience.  It provides a plethora of sensory input beyond the auditory, and that adds to the "fun" people have with it.  Add to that the fact that some vinyl releases are simply better mastering jobs, and the powerful nostalgia bias of the presence of surface noise, ticks and pops, and you have what some people enjoy.  And that's totally valid, and not wrong. 

If, however, you look purely at reproducing music, as quaint as they may seem at first, those flaws vinyl has are why we moved to digital.  If the goal is the best replication of the original signal, vinyl isn't your friend, and neither is analog tape.  16/44 does that replication quite well, to the point that it's indistinguishable from the original.  But before anyone starts in with "Cds sound worse" nonsense, the sound of a CD release does not in any way reliably represent the capabilities of 16/44, it represents the result of several levels of "artistic" decisions that have nothing to do with pure representation of the original.  And many early Cds were the result of just plain bad engineering.  Certainly not all, there are also many spectacular ones too.