Page 1 of 2
#1
So I don't know if it's just me wanting records to sound different for an excuse to buy records, but they sound more punchy and warm to me. Is this the case?
#3
Wouldn't know. I've only bought one for show.
Hey, I made a rhyme!
By dropping lines!
Maybe it's a sign!
That I'm doing fine!
...
This is how I pass the time.
Voted UG User of the Year 2015 & 2016
#8
No that's a common fallacy.
Quote by EpiExplorer
I swear this guy in particular writes for the telegraph or some shit.

Quote by Fat Lard
My name can actually be traced back to as early as the 1990s, it means "fuck off data miner"
#10
When I first heard Jimi Hendrix, it was on vinyl, I was a fan.

Needless to say in 2002 when I got a copy of Voodoo Chile; The Jimi Hendrix collection on CD, songs like Purple Haze and Fire took a little getting used to.
My first thought of the CD was
'It sounds slow!'

I'm now used to the digital Hendrix sound, now.

At first, almost ruined Jimi Hendrix for me, for you see, on vinyl, the songs sound faster... I was used to that.
Quote by laid-to-waste
look nigga, if you're chillin with 5 bros and 2 hos, you're gonna wanna pay attention to all of em equally. not moon over the hos forever and laugh at every shitty thing they say and just stare at them all night, like some of my mates do.
#11
It really depends on your record player and how good it sounds. Whether it sounds better or not is pretty subjective.

If you have a cheap player, it'll play the songs either slightly too fast, or too slow which will change the pitch of the song.
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
#12
TV's use to mainly use tubes, and now we use transistors.
The quality of the television is much better today then it was in our yesteryear's.
I think the question should be, what is more accurate sounding of the studio recording
A record or a CD
#14
Vinyl > CD.

Of course its all opinion. But I miss the crackle. As far as music is concerned analog to me will always trump digital.
--

How do you say "I'm okay" to an answering machine?

--
#15
People that think analog sounds better than digital are ******ed. They should all be put out of their misery.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#16
Quote by TunerAddict
People that think analog sounds better than digital are ******ed. They should all be put out of their misery.
You've just shown yourself to be hands down the absolute stupidest human being I've encountered this week. Congratulations.
#17
Quote by Horsedick.MPEG
It really depends on your record player and how good it sounds. Whether it sounds better or not is pretty subjective.

If you have a cheap player, it'll play the songs either slightly too fast, or too slow which will change the pitch of the song.

So pitch=quality.

got it.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
Your post was the only bright spot in this disgusting piece of thread.

Quote by lexanirider78
You have balls. I like balls....(awkward silence)

Quote by SeveralSpecies
I waited for the rape.

...


...but the rape never came
#18
I believe there is a definitive difference, One album I own i have in three formats, digital, cd and vinyl.
I much prefer the vinyl it seems to be crisper.
Quote by Perfection 101
If we all had this guy's clarity of thought, world peace would ensue





Quote by Zugunruhe
incidentally, there are absolutely no results for "bizzare anal kazoo" on google.


#19
Quote by Ian_the_fox
You've just shown yourself to be hands down the absolute stupidest human being I've encountered this week. Congratulations.


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
#21
Quote by Horsedick.MPEG


That was my exact reaction.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#24
Quote by me+yourmom=69
in my opinion Ian likes being a dick because his dad ****ed his pet bunny


Don't you mean fox?
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
#26
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.

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.

CDs do not suffer from such issues. Audio information is on the disc as it is tracked, and the frequency range is guaranteed. Certain frequencies aren't mixed down to mono, so a truer soundstage can be produced. The noise floor is a lot lower, allowing your equipment to unearth more detail. Interestingly, CD information, whilst digital, is taken off the CD in an analogue way- lasers are analogue, electricity is analogue. Nyquist theorum shows that digital resolution is indistinguishable from analogue resolution to the human ear. As there are less steps in signal conversion, there is less signal loss. One issue is error correction however. As music is an instantaneous thing, we can't resend packets of data, because the moment is gone. CD players have inbuilt error correction, which makes a guess if the information received is outside what is expected. Very difficult algorithms, which I'm not going to pretend to understand. But this obviously decreases the case for CD being a truer representation of what was recorded, but that's down to the equipment- better CD transports will introduce less error correction, as info is being read correctly. In theory, well ripped computer files should perform even better than CDs. With records, if there's an error, it's often down to the record rather than the reading- on damaged records, if the info isn't there or is wrong, it doesn't get picked up and you don't get any sound.

CDs get a bad rap because of the early days, where they did sound cold and lifeless. But that's what happens with new formats, there are teething problems. Pick up Brothers in Arms, go to your local hifi dealer, and have him/her put it on the best system they have. Get blown away.

Personally, I feel that in real world terms, CDs can produce a truer representation of the original recorded sound. However, I use both formats, because there are some albums I prefer on CD, some I prefer on vinyl. Instead of looking for the truer sound, look for the sound that you feel sounds better to you. This is just a brief overview. I wrote even more, but my iPad switched off

Source: I work with hifi for a living. I deal with annoying as hell 'audiophiles' that are wrong every day.
Last edited by Deliriumbassist at Feb 10, 2013,
#27
Delirium I love you.

/thread.

That's all folks, pack up and go home.
--

How do you say "I'm okay" to an answering machine?

--
#29
Delirium won the thread, move on yall.

Its all what you prefer at the end of the day. Steppenwolf were made for vinyl, Rush were not. (I still own every vinyl of theirs though )
Quote by MetalGS3SE
This is the best idea I have ever heard. Ever.

Naedauuf for president people.


#30
Quote by stratman_13
Delirium I love you.

/thread.

That's all folks, pack up and go home.


Just the other week I had a 'VINYL IS BETTER THAN EVERYTHING, HURRDURR' customer. So I demo'd him the CD path of my current system with the CD version of his favourite album.

He's now waiting on delivery of the same system.
#31
Quote by Deliriumbassist
However, I use both formats, because there are some albums I prefer on CD, some I prefer on vinyl. Instead of looking for the truer sound, look for the sound that you feel sounds better to you.


Exactly. Not sure why everyone has to get so goddamn militant about it.
#33
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!"
#34
I've only listened to records a couple times when I was young, so I don't really remember much of it.

The two formats definitely sound different, but I think the question of which is "better" depends on what music you're listening to.

For example, if I was chilling out to some Sinatra, which was recorded at low volumes and with non-modern compression techniques, I'd probably prefer a record over a CD, because of the supposed warmth that is associated with vinyl and gramophones.

However, if I was listening to something like Periphery, which is loud, and super-compressed, and pika pika, I'd probably prefer a CD.

So yeah, different formats for different styles of music.
#35
il help you out with a scrumptious btbam example

colours on record
intro sounds like hes right there. holy shit, tommy is in my bedroom, oh god his voice, holy shit sorry tommy i didnt mean to hit your face with that jetstrea...

colours on cd
fasho, yeah, i dig it, DD boobies, lickin them titties

colours on record
rawr rawr rawr growl growl night goggles in santas sleigh, rawr rawr, smoke weed erryday

colours on cd
jkdsfguehgfkjdsngohsfd;ognbjkfdnsg;shnfdohgsdh;fgds

colours on record
hssssss crackle crackle hssssssss cracka nigga crackle

colours on cd
skip skip skip skip skip skip

yeah...my colours skips
#36
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?
#37
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.
Last edited by jakey333 at Feb 10, 2013,
#38
Quote by yoman297
Why the **** are my friends putting their releases on Cassette?


I would assume they hold a misplaced belief that it somehow makes them "cool" and "scene"
#40
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.

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.

CDs do not suffer from such issues. Audio information is on the disc as it is tracked, and the frequency range is guaranteed. Certain frequencies aren't mixed down to mono, so a truer soundstage can be produced. The noise floor is a lot lower, allowing your equipment to unearth more detail. Interestingly, CD information, whilst digital, is taken off the CD in an analogue way- lasers are analogue, electricity is analogue. Nyquist theorum shows that digital resolution is indistinguishable from analogue resolution to the human ear. As there are less steps in signal conversion, there is less signal loss. One issue is error correction however. As music is an instantaneous thing, we can't resend packets of data, because the moment is gone. CD players have inbuilt error correction, which makes a guess if the information received is outside what is expected. Very difficult algorithms, which I'm not going to pretend to understand. But this obviously decreases the case for CD being a truer representation of what was recorded, but that's down to the equipment- better CD transports will introduce less error correction, as info is being read correctly. In theory, well ripped computer files should perform even better than CDs. With records, if there's an error, it's often down to the record rather than the reading- on damaged records, if the info isn't there or is wrong, it doesn't get picked up and you don't get any sound.

CDs get a bad rap because of the early days, where they did sound cold and lifeless. But that's what happens with new formats, there are teething problems. Pick up Brothers in Arms, go to your local hifi dealer, and have him/her put it on the best system they have. Get blown away.

Personally, I feel that in real world terms, CDs can produce a truer representation of the original recorded sound. However, I use both formats, because there are some albums I prefer on CD, some I prefer on vinyl. Instead of looking for the truer sound, look for the sound that you feel sounds better to you. This is just a brief overview. I wrote even more, but my iPad switched off

Source: I work with hifi for a living. I deal with annoying as hell 'audiophiles' that are wrong every day.



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

what's your opinion on this frequency range experiment?


Additional question.. if I buy a modern day lp copy of say.. DSOTM, does that mean that it will be recorded from a digital source?
Page 1 of 2