Page 2 of 2
JokerGrin
Banned
Join date: Dec 2012
10 IQ
#41
Quote by yoman297
Why the **** are my friends putting their releases on Cassette?

Are they hipsters? Almost all the cassette tapes I used to love end up twisted, snapped or worn away. I don't think I have anywhere or anything in this whole house that could play a cassette tape. Oh wait, lies, COMMODORE 64! Oh yeah, dat feel of staring at a bunch of coloured lines whilst waiting five minutes for your game to load.

I think cassettes are nice as far as memories and the like go, but for the sake of practicality, you're looking at digital distribution or CD.
So-Cal
Banned
Join date: Jun 2009
264 IQ
#42
yes

analog is a pure waveform
digital is an approximation
kaptink
whoa-oh-oh
Join date: Jun 2006
651 IQ
#43
My hearing is wrecked anyway now so it probably makes little difference to me.
Deliriumbassist
UG's only DB
Join date: Apr 2006
2,387 IQ
#44
Quote by jakey333
Vinyl sounds miles better for a pretty simple reason.

Anything digitally recorded has a naturally limited sound spectrum. Anything analog recorded has an infinite one.

Original sound is analog by definition. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values).

This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat, a pinched harmonic or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate. ( A good analogy for the 'steps' is a JPEG- which is effectively the same in an image. That is why every time you open and close a JPEG, it degrades slightly)

In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to your amplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker.

A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion.

This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard as noise or static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise.

I have just bought the Fostex DAC Headphone amp, which converts MP3 to a kind of analog system. It's the best thing I have bought in years.


And there's the theoretical viewpoint that gets spewed out without thinking of the real world issues.
AtaBorMan
UG's reclusive wanker
Join date: Jul 2009
480 IQ
#45
I love listening to old albums on vinyl, though I have to go with DB on this one.

Mr. Hipster, *ahem* jakey, get out.
Quote by Todd Hart
Shooting your friends with a real gun is a definite faux pas.

Quote by mystical_1
Professor Plum in the Studio with a new Amp

Quote by snipelfritz
If only I were the only one at home right now. I don't need my parents asking who Mr. Wiggles is.
hriday_hazarika
is a Space Lion. ^___^
Join date: May 2007
1,065 IQ
#46
Quote by jakey333
Vinyl sounds miles better for a pretty simple reason.

Anything digitally recorded has a naturally limited sound spectrum. Anything analog recorded has an infinite one.

Original sound is analog by definition. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values).

This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat, a pinched harmonic or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate. ( A good analogy for the 'steps' is a JPEG- which is effectively the same in an image. That is why every time you open and close a JPEG, it degrades slightly)

In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to your amplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker.

A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion.

This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard as noise or static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise.

I have just bought the Fostex DAC Headphone amp, which converts MP3 to a kind of analog system. It's the best thing I have bought in years.


Can you process sound faster than 44100 times per second?
Horsedick.MPEG
Dot MPEG
Join date: Jan 2010
770 IQ
#47
Quote by yoman297
Now that the thread has been won I have another question which relates a bit.

Why the **** are my friends putting their releases on Cassette?


they're kind of "cool" in a retro sense, but they sound like shit imo. I have a stereo system with a CD and Cassette player in it, and CD's sound phenominal, but then I pop in the cassette of the same album and it sounds so muddy.
2013 #5 Uger
2012 #7 Uger

Quote by jetfuel495
Jesus, Horsedick, you are my hero

Quote by JayT44
don't worry guys his girlfriend is black, she said it was okay for him to say that.



Stalk Me

Shitty Covers

Original Music

Lastfm
Deliriumbassist
UG's only DB
Join date: Apr 2006
2,387 IQ
#48
Quote by Sir-Shredalot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48&feature=youtube_gdata_player

what's your opinion on this frequency range experiment?


What I didn't catch him discuss is that the noise floor in vinyl records consists of a lot of high frequency sound, due to the stylus rubbing around the groove. But there's also the relationship of frequency range with dynamic range, ability of the home equipment, and so on. I definately wrote about frequency and dynamic range in my first attempt at my other post, before my battery ran out.
Last edited by Deliriumbassist at Feb 10, 2013,
King Twili
UG's Constable
Join date: Jul 2008
2,161 IQ
#49
There's a special sex move I do called the Charizard.
It's where you light the girls pubes, then put it out with your cum and run around the room flapping your arms screaming, "You don't have enough badges to train me!"
dr_shred
UG's Rock'n'Rolla
Join date: May 2009
271 IQ
#50
Quote by hriday_hazarika
Can you process sound faster than 44100 times per second?


You can but the industry standard for cd is 44.1khz 16 bit, its the analogue digital conversion that makes people think the sound is "worse". The conversion from analogue to digital at 44.1 is within out audible spectrum, the conversion also shifts the higher frequencies slightly out of phase which is what changes the sound. A way of avoiding this is using a higher sample rate such as 96khz (this puts the conversion out of our audible spectrum).

Basically until the industry standard medium for music changes vinyl will still sound more natural and pleasing to the listener than cd/mp3.
Quote by lespaul#1
Dr_Shred wins the thread



LEAVE THE PASTRIES ALONE!!!
Ian_the_fox
Banned
Join date: Feb 2011
2,990 IQ
#51
Quote by Deliriumbassist
Right, deep breath...

Records should sound more as a true representation of the recorded sound. Note: I'm not saying sounds better, but truer, there is a difference.

However, real life doesn't work in ideals and theories, so let me begin:

Vinyl records have very limited physical capabilities to produce a true to life recording for several reasons. Audiophiles/hipsters will try to tell you the information on the record is what was played. This is incorrect. Cutting vinyl is a compromise. In order to get more onto a record, bass is de-emphasised and treble is emphasised. This is reversed in the phono stage through RIAA equalisation, but adding steps into a hifi system always allows for loss. What isn't rectified is the loss of dynamic range. If this equalisation didn't happen, your LPs would be about three feet wide, because the grooves need to be a lot wider. The benefit of this, asides from not taking up a shedload of space (which records do well enough as it is), is that the arm and stylus don't need to travel as far, prolonging their life. In addition, all frequencies under a certain crossover point are automatically mixed down to mono, as stereo bass frequencies are difficult for a stylus to track. So far, that's a pretty big case for records not being as perfect as some people would like to think. Secondly, the size of these cutting heads and styli is finite. They can only cut between certain frequencies. The reason records sound warmer is because of this. You do lose a fair bit of top end with records. When you pluck a note on a guitar, you don't hear one frequency. Tone is made up of the fundamental, harmonics and overtones. The ratio of these harmonics and overtones produces different overall tones. More higher pitched overtones produces a brighter sound. As records cannot produce these higher overtones, everything becomes warmer, or wooly depending on your viewpoint.
I'm not going to jump straight to saying you're wrong, but what you say doesn't contour with this demonstration, (posted on previous page):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48


as well as leaving several other aspects unexplained.


From the sounds of it, you're saying that the main disadvantage vinyl has over CDs is how much of frequency range is cut, as well as the lower-freq's having to be mixed as mono.

Let me ask this: where does this play into fidelity? I thought fidelity was the level of faithfulness and realistic accuracy of the recording to its original performance. How is it lower in vinyl than CD's which are 44.1khz reproductions of the waveforms?

Last I recall, the equalization of the mix has absolutely nothing to do with the actual fidelity of the recording. Like, an average tube console stereo from the 50's may not cover as high of a frequency range as your average digital Sony system of today, but the accuracy and detail in the sound is far higher than it as well despite having a low response range when it comes to waveforms. Not only with digital vs. analog, but tube vs. solid state (just like in guitar amps).

Back to the equalization, I should also mention it varies from label to label. Some are horrendusly EQ'd and are more prone to wear than others. Some Chrysalis's and Columbia's in particular I tend to find really crappy sounding and too trebely, while the few ABC's and Polydor's I have experience with sound actually decent and do not contain the over-hyped treble at all.


Quote by Deliriumbassist
Then there's the setup of a turntable. There's a lot to get right- VTA, level surface, vibration damping, tracking weight, azimuth. And the noise floor. You lose a fair bit of fine detail that is in the record because of the high noise floor inherent in records.
These are all problems rectified with a decent turntable, and knowing what the hell you're doing.

Which isn't a problem for me considering my setup is a 1979 Pioneer PL-570 with a Ortofon stylus. With the way I have it set right now, the noise level is so low it's virtually nonexistent unless you are using extremely worn vinyl that was treated like a Frisbee throughout its lifetime.

On the other hand, I have a late-80's Fisher turntable with some generic Audiotechnica stylus I got for $20 which sounds horrendous (but at least works when I'm too lazy to plug in my Pioneer, which is on the other side of the room). Picks up all sorts of noise, even from other rooms, very loud even when going across a new, clean record, and painfully weak frequency response compared to my Pioneer.
Ian_the_fox
Banned
Join date: Feb 2011
2,990 IQ
#52
Also, you can give me the whole "it's all in your head" crap for this next one but:

Why is it that classic digitally-remastered reissue vinyl's sound remotely different from original prints, disregarding wear?


I have both the 40th anniversary reissue of Deep Purple's Machine Head and my mom's original print (or it could've been my dad's, though I'm guessing it's my mom's because the records she says are hers are typically in much worse condition as she didn't care for hers), and the original print has FAR superior sound quality compared to the reissue, which has "Digital Remaster" written on the sleeve.

Not only is half of the original's "feel" lost in the remaster, but the spread is totally destroyed. Instead of being able to have an audible visualization it just sounds like any other crappy modern recording with guitars panned 100% L+R as well as some vocal bits being buried. It almost sounds like an unfinished beta-mix.
Arfey McFeeshy
Registered User
Join date: Jan 2010
666 IQ
#56
CD's aren't made to produce sounds below or above the human hearing spectrum. Vinyl's and some digital media like FLAC can produce sounds above and below the human hearing range. Even though you can't hear those sounds technically it makes them "higher" quality.

Now if you was to take a CD/Vinyl/digital player and play the same song, they should all sound exactly the same and you should be able to hear the exact same things in each and everyone of them. I suppose some reason Vinyl's have a different tone than everything else, but with a bit tweaking of an EQ it'll sound just the same as the others.

EDIT: After reading through this thread I just realized how many factors I left out and am too stupid to understand.

Disregard everything I just said.
BLANKBLANK
Last edited by Arfey McFeeshy at Feb 10, 2013,
sashki
Join date: Feb 2005
6,579 IQ
#57
Quote by Ian_the_fox

Let me ask this: where does this play into fidelity? I thought fidelity was the level of faithfulness and realistic accuracy of the recording to its original performance. How is it lower in vinyl than CD's which are 44.1khz reproductions of the waveforms?

I hope you're aware that even in an all-analog signal path, the output signal is still an approximation. Every component is prone to losses and non-linearity, some more than others.
anvil is god
new cocaine
Join date: May 2011
769 IQ
#59
Quote by Ian_the_fox
Also, you can give me the whole "it's all in your head" crap for this next one but:

Why is it that classic digitally-remastered reissue vinyl's sound remotely different from original prints, disregarding wear?


I have both the 40th anniversary reissue of Deep Purple's Machine Head and my mom's original print (or it could've been my dad's, though I'm guessing it's my mom's because the records she says are hers are typically in much worse condition as she didn't care for hers), and the original print has FAR superior sound quality compared to the reissue, which has "Digital Remaster" written on the sleeve.

Not only is half of the original's "feel" lost in the remaster, but the spread is totally destroyed. Instead of being able to have an audible visualization it just sounds like any other crappy modern recording with guitars panned 100% L+R as well as some vocal bits being buried. It almost sounds like an unfinished beta-mix.

Can I get an objective description of feel?
Also, a shitty digital remaster is the engineers fault, not the medium.
MinterMan22
only smells
Join date: Nov 2007
763 IQ
#60
Quote by me+yourmom=69
go **** a fox you sick ****er

__
..::fat
lard::..
Ian_the_fox
Banned
Join date: Feb 2011
2,990 IQ
#61
Quote by anvil is god
Can I get an objective description of feel?


It's just that feel, bro. Ya'know?
willT08
Banned
Join date: Jul 2009
2,923 IQ
#62
Quote by Ian_the_fox

Not only is half of the original's "feel" lost in the remaster

you hopeless twat Ian
anvil is god
new cocaine
Join date: May 2011
769 IQ
#63
Quote by Ian_the_fox


It's just that feel, bro. Ya'know?

Seriously though, stop bullshitting and give me an objective description of feel.
Ian_the_fox
Banned
Join date: Feb 2011
2,990 IQ
#64
Quote by anvil is god
Seriously though, stop bullshitting and give me an objective description of feel.
There isn't one.


It's really just a combination of things, from the spread being messed up as mentioned to having the shitty smile-EQ that plagues modern mixes (mostly rock, metal, and pop).

And being a digital remaster, that just makes it more of an approximation recording, like what you'd hear from a CD or 44.1khz/s sound.


EDIT: You know now that I think of it, I could also be biased by the fact that I'm using a high-end turntable & stylus, yet a barely-working CD player from the mid-80's.
Last edited by Ian_the_fox at Feb 10, 2013,
Ian_the_fox
Banned
Join date: Feb 2011
2,990 IQ
#65
Quote by willT08

you hopeless twat Ian
Coming from Mr. "Bass is there to be felt, not heard."
anvil is god
new cocaine
Join date: May 2011
769 IQ
#66
Quote by Ian_the_fox
There isn't one.


It's really just a combination of things, from the spread being messed up as mentioned to having the shitty smile-EQ that plagues modern mixes (mostly rock, metal, and pop).

And being a digital remaster, that just makes it more of an approximation recording, like what you'd hear from a CD or 44.1khz/s sound.


EDIT: You know now that I think of it, I could also be biased by the fact that I'm using a high-end turntable & stylus, yet a barely-working CD player from the mid-80's.

Analog is still approximation, with the loss of some of the bass/treble and added mids. Also, what you describe is the fault of a shitty mix to begin with.
Ian_the_fox
Banned
Join date: Feb 2011
2,990 IQ
#67
Quote by anvil is god
Analog is still approximation, with the loss of some of the bass/treble and added mids.
It's still less of an approximation. Assuming everything is correct, analog is a near perfect sinewave (but not entirely smooth), digital is a squarewave reproduction.


Same reason good tube guitar amps sound better than cheaper digital/modeling amps. And even with higher end digital amps, they're still trying to emulate a tube signal, yet still is not the real thing. Just an approximation.

Of course, this probably doesn't matter or appeal to you as you are most likely still a broke teenager running an Epiphone through a Spider III with no ear for good tone.


Quote by anvil is god
Also, what you describe is the fault of a shitty mix to begin with.
Did you even read what the hell I posted? The original print doesn't have those problems. The remaster does.
Last edited by Ian_the_fox at Feb 10, 2013,
Horsedick.MPEG
Dot MPEG
Join date: Jan 2010
770 IQ
#68
Quote by Ian_the_fox
Did you even read what the hell I posted? The original print doesn't have those problems. The remaster does.


Like he previously stated, it's the engineer's fault, not digital's. You'll take back those words when you listen to a proper digital remaster
2013 #5 Uger
2012 #7 Uger

Quote by jetfuel495
Jesus, Horsedick, you are my hero

Quote by JayT44
don't worry guys his girlfriend is black, she said it was okay for him to say that.



Stalk Me

Shitty Covers

Original Music

Lastfm
Ian_the_fox
Banned
Join date: Feb 2011
2,990 IQ
#69
Quote by Horsedick.MPEG
Like he previously stated, it's the engineer's fault, not digital's. You'll take back those words when you listen to a proper digital remaster
Yes, but he said "at first," as in when the album was first recorded. Yet ruined in the remastering.

Please direct me to a good digital remaster, because from my experience all they (engineers) try to do is make it "iPod friendly" (i.e. giving it the "smile", over-compressing everything, making it louder, etc.). Some albums aren't as terribly effected, but some are just straight-up ruined.

I have a copy of Rush's Permanent Waves on CD that's a digital remaster. It's so butchered it's almost unlistenable. Though I've generally heard that Atlantic is known for terrible remasters.
Horsedick.MPEG
Dot MPEG
Join date: Jan 2010
770 IQ
#70
Quote by Ian_the_fox
Please direct me to a good digital remaster


I would but it's going to cost you money because I'm going to make you buy a handful of albums.
2013 #5 Uger
2012 #7 Uger

Quote by jetfuel495
Jesus, Horsedick, you are my hero

Quote by JayT44
don't worry guys his girlfriend is black, she said it was okay for him to say that.



Stalk Me

Shitty Covers

Original Music

Lastfm
anvil is god
new cocaine
Join date: May 2011
769 IQ
#71
Quote by Ian_the_fox
It's still less of an approximation. Assuming everything is correct, analog is a near perfect sinewave (but not entirely smooth), digital is a squarewave reproduction.

The problem with this logic is that any difference is extremely subtle or unnoticeable, because the human ear can't process sound fast enough to pick it up. Theoretically, there is a huge difference, but in practice it hardly exists with a quality digital recording on a decent medium.

Same reason good tube guitar amps sound better than cheaper digital/modeling amps. And even with higher end digital amps, they're still trying to emulate a tube signal, yet still is not the real thing. Just an approximation.

Don't bring that up, as the DSP done in modeling amps and digital playback are two separate things.


Of course, this probably doesn't matter or appeal to you as you are most likely still a broke teenager running an Epiphone through a Spider III with no ear for good tone.

Actually, I'm a broke teenager with a Douglas and a Peavey Valveking. I can assure you that I know how to dial in a decent tone.
Did you even read what the hell I posted? The original print doesn't have those problems. The remaster does.

Again, if somebody remastered and does a shitty job, no matter how good the original, the outcome will still be bad.
Helloween4Ever
Keeper of the Seven Keys
Join date: Apr 2008
871 IQ
#72
Minus all the Analog vs. Digital debate in the thread, it depends on the mastering done on the album. For example; The Who - Who's Next on vinyl sounds a ton better than it does on cd, in my opinion. The reason for this is that IIRC back in the 60's, 70's, 80's etc. music was mastered for vinyl, not cd, which would make the cd's sound quality inferior.

Nowadays however, since the cd is more convinient and shit, music is mastered for cd or even as an MP3. On new vinyls there is not a huge sound difference in terms of quality of sound, clarity of instruments, etc. the majority of the time. For example, Amon Amarth - With Oden on our Side sounds exactly the same on record as it does on cd.

This does not take into account the record player, which I can't say that I know a whole lot about bad ones since I inherited my dad's one, which was top of the line when he bought it.

IE: depends on the vinyl, really.
Quote by NotFromANUS
"Don't brutal your sister, Timmy!"


last.fm