Listening to the Records (platic disc things, for all the kiddies out there)

Gulzakar

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,074
0
0
I was listening to the Beatles White Album on my GF's record player...for some reason, I actually enjoyed it more than the CD I have. No, it's not as crisp, but it sounded more "full".

I guess that's because it's analog? Anyone else ever experience this?

I started playing a bunch of records my GF has, including some Record of the Star Wars sound track. I was listening to the Cantina Song...awesome!.

I think I'll have to start hitting up garage sales for old records.

 

shocksyde

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2001
5,539
0
0
Someone update this guy on the definition of Digital and Analog? I don't feel like doing it...
 

NissanGurl

Golden Member
Sep 4, 2003
1,111
0
0
Looking for records at garage sales can become an addiction.....just ask my dad (well over 5,000+ ;)). He pretty much bought all his albums at flea markets or garage sales with an acceptable average price of $1 per album. It's always funny hearing him grumble if they are asking.....*gasp*......$2 per album.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
I enjoy listening to LPs, but it's not necessarily for the sound quality, I mean, it is "softer" but you can emulate that on a PC if you want to. No, it's the entire album "experience" that I enjoy. There's a whole process to taking an album out of the jacket, dusting it off, and then listening to an album that was actually put together as a package, not just a bunch of tracks thrown on to a CD. :)

Edit: Plus, there's something physical to seeing the actual disk spinning and the needle traveling across the disk.
 

djheater

Lifer
Mar 19, 2001
14,637
2
0
78s and the like were initially limited to 4 min a side I think?
Eventually technology progressed and they were able to fit more tracks on a side, which they called long-playing.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
41
91
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Someone update this guy on the definition of Digital and Analog? I don't feel like doing it...
OK, digital limits the waveform to a discrete "stairstep" pattern, with the bitrate determining the "width" of each "step", while analogue is capable of exactly reproducing the continuous waveform. However, analogue is more susceptable to transmission noise and generally requires much more expensive equipment to eliminate static.

ZV
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Someone update this guy on the definition of Digital and Analog? I don't feel like doing it...
OK, digital limits the waveform to a discrete "stairstep" pattern, with the bitrate determining the "width" of each "step", while analogue is capable of exactly reproducing the continuous waveform. However, analogue is more susceptable to transmission noise and generally requires much more expensive equipment to eliminate static.

ZV

There is a limit to the amount of information per channel that analog can handle, just like digital, and you kinda poked at the reasons for this limitation. Simply put, analog and digital can both carry and equally clear signal, and for a given bandwidth, digital tends to suffer less depredation, but analog is definitely not inherently carrying more information. :)

There's value in analog, but it's not in objective sound quality, it's in the experience.
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
One of the differences is in the frequency range (correct term?) and it becomes compressed in analog storage media, which is why a lot of people talk about hearing things in vinyl that they didn't previously.

I would agree that I prefer vinyl over digital formats for many types of music.
 
May 31, 2001
15,326
2
0
Anyone got the link to the article where they added background noise and static to CD audio and played it for record aficionados and audiophiles that were told they were listening to records? They swore up and down it was better than the CD audio version. :p
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
41
91
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Someone update this guy on the definition of Digital and Analog? I don't feel like doing it...
OK, digital limits the waveform to a discrete "stairstep" pattern, with the bitrate determining the "width" of each "step", while analogue is capable of exactly reproducing the continuous waveform. However, analogue is more susceptable to transmission noise and generally requires much more expensive equipment to eliminate static.

ZV
There is a limit to the amount of information per channel that analog can handle, just like digital, and you kinda poked at the reasons for this limitation. Simply put, analog and digital can both carry and equally clear signal, and for a given bandwidth, digital tends to suffer less depredation, but analog is definitely not inherently carrying more information. :)

There's value in analog, but it's not in objective sound quality, it's in the experience.
In practice yes, but in theory, and I stress in theory, analogue can transmit a perfect reproduction of the original continuous waveform. In the real world, there are signal noise concerns though.

Philosophically I prefer analogue, but high-bitrate digital is so damn convenient.

ZV
 

Minerva

Platinum Member
Nov 18, 1999
2,134
25
91
16 bits at 44,100 samples per second per channel is hardly enough fidelity to compare for reference. Problem is most people never took care of their records and when they heard cd's with no background noise of their own and no pops they touted it as better.

That's why in the studio you always see higher bit depth and much higher sampling rates.

High speed tape (30 ips) can capture an incredible amount of detail and frequency response. But a tape deck the size of washing machine is hard to carry around. :p
 

LordMorpheus

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2002
6,871
1
0
I like records (have a player and a small collection) but not because they "sound better" or anything, I just think the technology is really cool ( I love how you can turn the amp off and still hear the music just coming from the needle).
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Someone update this guy on the definition of Digital and Analog? I don't feel like doing it...
OK, digital limits the waveform to a discrete "stairstep" pattern, with the bitrate determining the "width" of each "step", while analogue is capable of exactly reproducing the continuous waveform. However, analogue is more susceptable to transmission noise and generally requires much more expensive equipment to eliminate static.

ZV
There is a limit to the amount of information per channel that analog can handle, just like digital, and you kinda poked at the reasons for this limitation. Simply put, analog and digital can both carry and equally clear signal, and for a given bandwidth, digital tends to suffer less depredation, but analog is definitely not inherently carrying more information. :)

There's value in analog, but it's not in objective sound quality, it's in the experience.
In practice yes, but in theory, and I stress in theory, analogue can transmit a perfect reproduction of the original continuous waveform. In the real world, there are signal noise concerns though.

Philosophically I prefer analogue, but high-bitrate digital is so damn convenient.

ZV

I stress, as an electrical engineer, that signal to noise is part of the theory, and that analog is not perfect, even in theory.
 

dwell

pics?
Oct 9, 1999
5,185
2
0
Records sound better because they add a layer of imperfection that improves the overall sound. It's something in the bottom end. CDs are just digital and cold. You can probably add a filter to mp3s to make them sound more like vinyl.
 

Gulzakar

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,074
0
0
Very well, I've been educated on digital versus analog.

So I say it sounds more "full", questioning analog. so from this quote:

"OK, digital limits the waveform to a discrete "stairstep" pattern, with the bitrate determining the "width" of each "step", while analogue is capable of exactly reproducing the continuous waveform. However, analogue is more susceptable to transmission noise and generally requires much more expensive equipment to eliminate static. "

Me interpreting the "fullness" could be because of the continous waverform, correct?

 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Someone update this guy on the definition of Digital and Analog? I don't feel like doing it...
OK, digital limits the waveform to a discrete "stairstep" pattern, with the bitrate determining the "width" of each "step", while analogue is capable of exactly reproducing the continuous waveform. However, analogue is more susceptable to transmission noise and generally requires much more expensive equipment to eliminate static.

ZV

There is a limit to the amount of information per channel that analog can handle, just like digital, and you kinda poked at the reasons for this limitation. Simply put, analog and digital can both carry and equally clear signal, and for a given bandwidth, digital tends to suffer less depredation, but analog is definitely not inherently carrying more information. :)

There's value in analog, but it's not in objective sound quality, it's in the experience.

I gotta kind of disagree here. I don't consider myself an audiophile anymore, but there is an objective difference apparent in some music.

I won't try to explain the cause, but some of Jimi Hendrix wierd guitar licks just get "dropped" when translated into digital. Stuff just goes missing and that's objective.

Fern
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
41
91
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Someone update this guy on the definition of Digital and Analog? I don't feel like doing it...
OK, digital limits the waveform to a discrete "stairstep" pattern, with the bitrate determining the "width" of each "step", while analogue is capable of exactly reproducing the continuous waveform. However, analogue is more susceptable to transmission noise and generally requires much more expensive equipment to eliminate static.

ZV
There is a limit to the amount of information per channel that analog can handle, just like digital, and you kinda poked at the reasons for this limitation. Simply put, analog and digital can both carry and equally clear signal, and for a given bandwidth, digital tends to suffer less depredation, but analog is definitely not inherently carrying more information. :)

There's value in analog, but it's not in objective sound quality, it's in the experience.
In practice yes, but in theory, and I stress in theory, analogue can transmit a perfect reproduction of the original continuous waveform. In the real world, there are signal noise concerns though.

Philosophically I prefer analogue, but high-bitrate digital is so damn convenient.

ZV
I stress, as an electrical engineer, that signal to noise is part of the theory, and that analog is not perfect, even in theory.
In theory, one could devise something that had no noise at all. Only signal.

In practice, of course, that's never going to be possible and as an engineer you're trained to deal with things in reality. Engineering theory is rather different from philosophical theory.

ZV
 

DougK62

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2001
8,035
6
81
Records sound better than CD's because the audio isn't compressed and "remastered".

 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Someone update this guy on the definition of Digital and Analog? I don't feel like doing it...
OK, digital limits the waveform to a discrete "stairstep" pattern, with the bitrate determining the "width" of each "step", while analogue is capable of exactly reproducing the continuous waveform. However, analogue is more susceptable to transmission noise and generally requires much more expensive equipment to eliminate static.

ZV
There is a limit to the amount of information per channel that analog can handle, just like digital, and you kinda poked at the reasons for this limitation. Simply put, analog and digital can both carry and equally clear signal, and for a given bandwidth, digital tends to suffer less depredation, but analog is definitely not inherently carrying more information. :)

There's value in analog, but it's not in objective sound quality, it's in the experience.
In practice yes, but in theory, and I stress in theory, analogue can transmit a perfect reproduction of the original continuous waveform. In the real world, there are signal noise concerns though.

Philosophically I prefer analogue, but high-bitrate digital is so damn convenient.

ZV
I stress, as an electrical engineer, that signal to noise is part of the theory, and that analog is not perfect, even in theory.
In theory, one could devise something that had no noise at all. Only signal.

In practice, of course, that's never going to be possible and as an engineer you're trained to deal with things in reality. Engineering theory is rather different from philosophical theory.

ZV

There is no philosophical theory of records...

the fact is, all communications channels are subject to noise. ALL. If you disregard noise, yeah you could imagine a perfect analog channel, but guess what? That same disregard for noise allows you to create an infinite bandwidth digital channel. If you disregard noise, you can create a perfect D/A converter and the digital channel would still sound the same as the analog. Digital and analog are just information channels. In the real world they handle nose differently, and thats why they are used for different things, but information is information and in that sense they are the same.