Which is better Vinyl, Compact Discs, or Cassettes

[Pepsi90919]

"perfect" analog is better than anything digital. digital audio is just a (usually poor) representation of an analog signal.

DOWN WITH PRO TOOLS AND PSEUDO-PRODUCERS

</thread>

 

[Squisher]

I know there are scratches and warped albums, but I find vinyl to be warmer and the soundstage to have more depth.

I can't say spin very many records these days just because of the convenience of CDs.

 

[ProviaFan]

Yeah, Pepsi, so where do we find this "perfect" analog audio? :roll:

 

[olds]

Laser disc

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
oh jeeze, you're gonna bring out all the nutjobs that think that vinyl is the be-all and end-all of audio recording. In fairness, most recordings that go onto CD these days sound like crap.

Yeah. 8 track is the best.

 

[sharkeeper]

Yeah, Pepsi, so where do we find this "perfect" analog audio?

Your ears are analogue and so are loudspeakers. If one studies acoustics in general you will learn that there are an infinite number of levels a signal can be.

Digital is discrete. 16 bit audio allows for only 65,536 discrete levels per sample. This is not very well defined. Moving up to 24 bit audio allows 16,777,216 levels, a dramatic improvement. The sample rate of CD's at 44.1 kHz is rather low as well as it does not afford enough headroom to faitfully capture the highest frequencies without issues.

Of course one can have all the bits and all the sampling in the world only to be ruined by inferior conversion to analogue either way. So yes this leaves a lot to be desired.

Remove all the typical drawbacks of conventional means to record audio and yes you will have better sound.

The biggest complaint people have when comparing CD's to say DVD-A or SACD is they cannot hear the difference. Well if you start out with a source that is better in the first place you most definitely can hear the difference. Problem is most POP crap is compressed, processed beyond comprehension and has the life stripped from it (not like that is even correct but let's leave semantics out!), all dithered up, no crest factor, etc. Horrible, just horrible.

 

[yoda291]

choir of hot girls who will sing for you on command > *

 

[QuitBanningMe]

HDD>*

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
Your ears are analogue and so are loudspeakers. If one studies acoustics in general you will learn that there are an infinite number of levels a signal can be.

Digital is discrete. 16 bit audio allows for only 65,536 discrete levels per sample. This is not very well defined. Moving up to 24 bit audio allows 16,777,216 levels, a dramatic improvement. The sample rate of CD's at 44.1 kHz is rather low as well as it does not afford enough headroom to faitfully capture the highest frequencies without issues.

Of course one can have all the bits and all the sampling in the world only to be ruined by inferior conversion to analogue either way. So yes this leaves a lot to be desired.

Remove all the typical drawbacks of conventional means to record audio and yes you will have better sound.

The biggest complaint people have when comparing CD's to say DVD-A or SACD is they cannot hear the difference. Well if you start out with a source that is better in the first place you most definitely can hear the difference. Problem is most POP crap is compressed, processed beyond comprehension and has the life stripped from it (not like that is even correct but let's leave semantics out!), all dithered up, no crest factor, etc. Horrible, just horrible.

I'm no audio expert, but I've worked in it enough to have a basic understanding of the stuff... Thanks for the refresher anyway. :thumbsup:

The question was rhetorical anyway, because I'm trying to get him to tell me where I can find out about this analog audio that doesn't add noise, distortion, etc. each time the audio is copied or manipulated within the system. Digital isn't perfect, true, but throwing enough bits and samples at something produces a pretty darn good interpretation, and IMHO the imperfect analog systems that actually exist outside of theory are not going to kill it any time soon.

 

[ajayjuneja]

"perfect analog": reel to reel deck at 15-30 ips, Nakamichi Dragon/ZX/CR-7 or Aiwa XK-S9000 cassette deck is as good as I've ever heard!
Vinyl on a rega turntable with an expensive cartridge is also amazing.

Please note that nothing is perfect, but the right high end gear together really sings.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: ajayjuneja
"perfect analog": reel to reel deck at 15-30 ips, Nakamichi Dragon/ZX/CR-7 or Aiwa XK-S9000 cassette deck is as good as I've ever heard!
Vinyl on a rega turntable with an expensive cartridge is also amazing.

Please note that nothing is perfect, but the right high end gear together really sings.

Don't forget, you have to have tube amps.

 

[Locut0s]

With the sound equipment most people have they are about equal, assuming a new tape a new CD and a new record. With good speakers, and I don't fall into this category myself, I'd assume that it's a bit of a toss up between vinyl and CDs. Again assuming good quality media and playback devices.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

I had this posted in highly technical in a similar thread, I'm hoping at least a few people will be able to make sense of it

Oh great, another vinyl vs. the world debate.

Yes, in theory analog media have perfect reproduction. In real life this does not happen for a number of reasons the most important of which is that the medium (in this case vinyl) has very real physical limitations. For one thing, you have a limited dynamic range because of the way the media is both recorded and read. Since there is a needle that has to follow the groove you can only make the groove "wiggle" so much before the needle can't follow properly and you get distortion. Now, a laser turntable would be better, but when they're recording they're assuming that most people have mechanical turntables not optical ones so they have to limit the dynamic range. Secondly your record is vulnerable to all kinds of environmental issues. If the room gets warm, cold, moist, etc. you are directly affecting the medium and by consequence the sound since it's an analog medium. Next, because of the way the record is both written and read, you have to live with relatively large tracks that mean a large record. It also makes it impractical for any portable uses as was mentionned abve.

Moving on to CDs then. These are definitely not perfect either, nonetheless they have the practical advantage that the data stored is much more robust than on vinyl. Yes the both the ADC and the DAC add some amount of noise to the signal, this is inevitable. What is more important however is that the quality of both the ADC (at the recording end) and the DAC in your CD can be implemented in different ways that have different compromises. Depending on the amount of effort that you put into the reconstruction of the signal the quantization noise caused by the conversion can be reduced. On top of this, you have to remember that there are analog components to your CD player or amplifier since sooner or later you have to convert the signal back to analog and do some power amplification before you send it out to your speakers. The way you handle each step and the quality of every component plays a factor in the final sound quality. Obviously, you can't expect a $30 cheapo CD player to sound as good as a $400 turntable.

With all this said, the CD format is very good but not without it's imperfections. In most cases, people prefer vinyl not because it's more accurate, but because the they *like* the distortions caused during the playback (eg the "warm sound" of vinyl). Nonetheless, if you look at a format like DVD-A, it's such ridiculous overkill compared to what the ear can perceive that these arguments are pretty much moot.

To put things in perspective, it is generally agreed that the human ear can perceive sounds up to 20 KHz, hence Sony and Philips originally used a 44.1 KHz sampling rate specification for the CD. DVD-Audio, on the other hand allows for sampling rates of up to 192 KHz which means that you can faithfully reproduce sounds of about approximately 96 KHz. Now, without going into the details of filter design, this makes it easier to have a flat passband for the relatively low frequency audible sound. Next, DVD-A allows for words to be up to 24 bits long; a 24-bit DAC would give you a noise floor of about -144dB. Meaning that the softest sound is about 16 million times softer than the louest sound. In practical terms, with a noise floor that low, the quantization noise isn't what's limiting your sound quality.

So, long story short the people who claim that analog is better than digital are only right in theory.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: CptObvious
It's not so much the medium as the recording/mastering process, for me. Digital has a higher signal-to-noise ratio so the temptation is to push all the levels to their limits. Everything sounds cleaner but it sounds tiring to the ears after a while. Too 'in-your-face' and not enough ambience.

There are still digital recordings that are peak limited that sound amazingly warm (Radiohead's OK Computer is my prime example) but most pop/hard rock/hip-hop nowadays sounds too sterile.

I remember vinyl records on a cheap radio/pickup (mono, speaker included), and in my memories it sounds so sweet and warm (of course, the music being better than what is produced now helped alot). We even let him play in the house and listen to it from outside

 

[edmundoab]

cassette tapes suck big time

its between a vinyl and a Compact Disc

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
They should have a sarcasm meter icon. Animated of course.

So it looks like an ammeter on an across the line 6.6 kV starter when the motor is still and the start button is pushed. Needle slammed to the far right with so much force it bounces furiously at the peg like a $2whore that got a $400 annual prepayment.

Similar to this, but smaller with different wording?

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: edro13
You Vinyl voters are elitest morons. CDs are infinitely better than vinyl.

I treat my cd's with the greatest care. I have some cd's from 88 that are starting to skip. CD's have a limited shelf life.

I have Vinyl from 1960 and it plays perfectly if I clean it with some rubbing alcohol.

If you handle, and care for both correctly, Vinyl will last infinity longer. A very small % of cd's are recorded on media that will withstand the test of time. I have read nothing about music makers switching to the archive quality media. So, I am to expect a CD I buy today to not play properly in 20 years? I have 15 year old cd's now that won't play worth a damn.

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: edro13
You Vinyl voters are elitest morons. CDs are infinitely better than vinyl.

I treat my cd's with the greatest care. I have some cd's from 88 that are starting to skip. CD's have a limited shelf life.

I have Vinyl from 1960 and it plays perfectly if I clean it with some rubbing alcohol.

If you handle, and care for both correctly, Vinyl will last infinity longer. A very small % of cd's are recorded on media that will withstand the test of time. I have read nothing about music makers switching to the archive quality media. So, I am to expect a CD I buy today to not play properly in 20 years? I have 15 year old cd's now that won't play worth a damn.

That's interesting, I have an eagles CD (greatest hits) I bought in 89 that still plays flawlessly.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: edro13
You Vinyl voters are elitest morons. CDs are infinitely better than vinyl.

I treat my cd's with the greatest care. I have some cd's from 88 that are starting to skip. CD's have a limited shelf life.

I have Vinyl from 1960 and it plays perfectly if I clean it with some rubbing alcohol.

If you handle, and care for both correctly, Vinyl will last infinity longer. A very small % of cd's are recorded on media that will withstand the test of time. I have read nothing about music makers switching to the archive quality media. So, I am to expect a CD I buy today to not play properly in 20 years? I have 15 year old cd's now that won't play worth a damn.

Shens.

There is nothing on a CD to wear out. So unless it was exposed to heat, cold, scratched, warped, etc... It should never lose it's data.

With a record, there is physical contact. Correct me if I'm wrong, but records most certainly do literally "wear out".

CDs do not.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: edro13
You Vinyl voters are elitest morons. CDs are infinitely better than vinyl.

I treat my cd's with the greatest care. I have some cd's from 88 that are starting to skip. CD's have a limited shelf life.

I have Vinyl from 1960 and it plays perfectly if I clean it with some rubbing alcohol.

If you handle, and care for both correctly, Vinyl will last infinity longer. A very small % of cd's are recorded on media that will withstand the test of time. I have read nothing about music makers switching to the archive quality media. So, I am to expect a CD I buy today to not play properly in 20 years? I have 15 year old cd's now that won't play worth a damn.

That's interesting, I have an eagles CD (greatest hits) I bought in 89 that still plays flawlessly.

it depends on the media used, I have cd's that look like they've been cleaned with steel wool that are perfect still. And I have cd's that have a baby size scratch that causes a few songs to skip. I never liked that about CD's. Also this thread isn't "which is better on a budget" if you have unlimited money, and want the best sound quality period, Vinyl is the best way to go. And a lot of music is still pressed to Vinyl *for DJ's* we have a record store up the street, that sells nothing but vinyl, imagine that

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: edro13
You Vinyl voters are elitest morons. CDs are infinitely better than vinyl.

I treat my cd's with the greatest care. I have some cd's from 88 that are starting to skip. CD's have a limited shelf life.

I have Vinyl from 1960 and it plays perfectly if I clean it with some rubbing alcohol.

If you handle, and care for both correctly, Vinyl will last infinity longer. A very small % of cd's are recorded on media that will withstand the test of time. I have read nothing about music makers switching to the archive quality media. So, I am to expect a CD I buy today to not play properly in 20 years? I have 15 year old cd's now that won't play worth a damn.

Shens.

There is nothing on a CD to wear out. So unless it was exposed to heat, cold, scratched, warped, etc... It should never lose it's data.

With a record, there is physical contact. Correct me if I'm wrong, but records most certainly do literally "wear out".

CDs do not.

Vinyl will wear out if you play it over and over and over and over on a player without a good cart and needle on it. Caring for Vinyl, and a record player is a tedious task. But most Vinyl people are redicliously anal (like me) and will spend a lot of time on up keep. CD's most definetly do degrade, I think most CD-R disc's are rated at 20 years max. I've had generic brands die in less then 3. (no scratches, no nothing) Pressed cd's should have a longer shelf life (it would make sense) but there are a lot of people who have cd's from the first few years of cd's being released, that just don't play anymore. I don't trust CD for long term data storage, period.

 

[DPmaster]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: edro13
You Vinyl voters are elitest morons. CDs are infinitely better than vinyl.

I treat my cd's with the greatest care. I have some cd's from 88 that are starting to skip. CD's have a limited shelf life.

I have Vinyl from 1960 and it plays perfectly if I clean it with some rubbing alcohol.

If you handle, and care for both correctly, Vinyl will last infinity longer. A very small % of cd's are recorded on media that will withstand the test of time. I have read nothing about music makers switching to the archive quality media. So, I am to expect a CD I buy today to not play properly in 20 years? I have 15 year old cd's now that won't play worth a damn.

Shens.

There is nothing on a CD to wear out. So unless it was exposed to heat, cold, scratched, warped, etc... It should never lose it's data.

With a record, there is physical contact. Correct me if I'm wrong, but records most certainly do literally "wear out".

CDs do not.

It's most likely CD rot. They probably weren't using the highest quality materials back then on some discs. Just take a look at laserdiscs. A majority of my laserdiscs play just fine but I've got a 2 or 3 that won't play simply because of laserdisc rot. One of the bad laserdiscs I have is barely 10 years old.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
They should have a sarcasm meter icon. Animated of course.

So it looks like an ammeter on an across the line 6.6 kV starter when the motor is still and the start button is pushed. Needle slammed to the far right with so much force it bounces furiously at the peg like a $2whore that got a $400 annual prepayment.

Similar to this, but smaller with different wording?

Text

 

[Linflas]

Personally I think vinyl sounds better but CDs are far more convenient.

 

[sharkeeper]

DMDFEBIL!