 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do you prefer the sound of vinyl or CD? |
| Vinyl |
|
72% |
[ 18 ] |
| CD |
|
28% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 25 |
|
| Author |
Message |
D1nk0
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 12, 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 1589
|
 Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Enigmatic_Oddity wrote: | | CDs, they have a much more neutral sound. I can understand that people would prefer the warmer sound of vinyl, but there's equaliser settings that can achieve that effect. To me CDs definitely are superior to vinyl in sound quality, but older material that is originally recorded on vinyl and then encoded for CDs are best left on their original formats. |
People are just trying to look cool and seem authentic by saying they prefer vinyl. I remember growing up thinking that Vinyl by far has the Poorest sound quality; not to mention being very vulnerable to damage and skipping at the slightest vibration. I realize that they are necessary for DJing and skratching  , but in terms of what I actually Listen to CDs are definitely the highest sound quality. Tapes were better than records but they wear out from years of play to the point where the actual tape thread rips. |
|
| Back to top |
|
polarity
Toucan
Joined: Feb 16, 2006
Posts: 279
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Too right. Most vinyl sounds like rubbish. The only high quality sound you get is from a 12" single, because there's just so much space for the sound to be recorded in. They last better because the grooves can be cut a lot deeper, as they don't need to be so close together.
_________________
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
D1nk0
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 12, 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 1589
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| polarity wrote: | | Too right. Most vinyl sounds like rubbish. The only high quality sound you get is from a 12" single, because there's just so much space for the sound to be recorded in. They last better because the grooves can be cut a lot deeper, as they don't need to be so close together. |
Also, a recordplayer/turntable that actually has halfway-decent sound quality will co$t HUNDREDS of dollars when you can by a decent CD player these days for less than $100. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Blasty
Toucan
Joined: Apr 22, 2008
Age: 22
Posts: 250
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think vinyl would be better when played with high-quality equipment, as long as the record was kept in good condition. The problem is that each play wears both the media and the stylus, and I like to listen to some songs over and over. Another disadvantage is that the recorded material is packed more densely toward the center of the record because it runs at the same speed throughout the entire recording and playback process, resulting in a loss of resolution.
CDs have the potential to sound outstanding. Unfortunately, not all of them live up to it. The problem with CDs is digital compression. For those who aren't sure what that is, think of listening to a low-quality mp3 file. "S" sounds like cymbals will have a bit of a sound like a box of broken glass being shaken. Drums might also not have the quick initial punch that they're supposed to. This is a result of too much compression. When the missing data is filled in by the digital-to-analog system, it isn't as accurate as it needs to be. Some CDs exhibit noticeable compression, but not at all to the extent that bad mp3s do.
So, I use CDs because they're more versatile and may be played repeatedly without wearing them or the reading device down. Some sound downright amazing, while some leave a bit to be desired. Vinyl would be fun if I wanted to sink enough time and money into it, but not all of the albums I like are available as LPs.
_________________
Well. That was a hastily unloaded pile of incoherence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
EvilKimEvil
zoo-music girl
Joined: Sep 27, 2007
Posts: 3038
Location: CA
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So it's cool to say you like the sound of vinyl better than digital? I've never heard that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
polarity
Toucan
Joined: Feb 16, 2006
Posts: 279
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
What I find to verge on the hilarious, is that most of the people I know who go on about vinyl being so much better, can't hear a damn thing to the point I have to seriously raise my voice for them to hear me, after them spending so much time stood in front of speaker stacks at parties. That kind of love for music does not confer an ability to judge what medium sounds better.
_________________
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
RainKing
Deinonychus
![]()
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Age: 21
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Blasty wrote: |
CDs have the potential to sound outstanding. Unfortunately, not all of them live up to it. The problem with CDs is digital compression. For those who aren't sure what that is, think of listening to a low-quality mp3 file. "S" sounds like cymbals will have a bit of a sound like a box of broken glass being shaken. Drums might also not have the quick initial punch that they're supposed to. This is a result of too much compression. When the missing data is filled in by the digital-to-analog system, it isn't as accurate as it needs to be. Some CDs exhibit noticeable compression, but not at all to the extent that bad mp3s do.
|
This is something that I hate. The CD's dynamic range can extend 90dB, but many of them are compressed to sound louder, and the amount of compression they use has gotten a lot worse over time. It's a terrible gimmick. The CD's that I have that I can think of off the top of my head that have this problem the worst would be Radiohead's latest, In Rainbows, and Dinosaur Jr's latest, Beyond. They probably have an average volume level above -10dB (0dB is the top). They sound atrocious, especially In Rainbows because that kind of music would be so much better uncompressed with an actual dynamic range  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
D1nk0
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 12, 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 1589
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Another question all together is whether sound generated electronically by Analog means can ever be duplicated by reproduced by computer modelling accurately enough that a listener couldnt tell the difference between the 2. Specifically Im talking about so-called Virtual Analog synthesizers which use computationally intensive algorithms to model analog synthesizers as opposed to Truly Analog synthesizers(like the Big knobulators of the 1970s . |
|
| Back to top |
|
Xelebes
Velociraptor
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Age: 23
Posts: 429
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| To me, as a musician, using a real ARP2600, SERGE or TB303 is not important as realism is not what I want in my music. Rather, I desire a mixture of coldness and warmth and the desire to be able to sequence my music in a way impossible on an all-analog system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pakled
"Bless his Heart"
Joined: Nov 13, 2007
Age: 50
Posts: 2547
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Having actually taken a course on Synth in College (back in the mid-70s), I actually got to mess with a Moog 900 (I think...30 years ago...cut me some slack.. and an Arp 2600. They could sound pretty lifeless without low pass filters, etc. I've got one (cheapo) analog synth, and a few digital ones.
I've been told (an old explanation) that the even-numbered harmonics are best done by analog, while digital emphasizes the odd-numbered harmonics.
Considering I had to sell all my albums, and the missus misplaced all my RCA cables, MP3 is how I have to go nowadays... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fogman
Econo-class Iconoclast
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Age: 41
Posts: 1889
Location: SC, USA
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They both have their advantages as well as disadvantages. CD's when properly recorded and mastered have exceptional clarity with an exceedingly low noise floor in the RIAA specified 20hz-20khz range. That being said, Vinyl has a much greater frequeny range as there is no brickwall on the frequencies that it can produce unlike CD's. That being said, Vinyl also has limitations in the form of surface noice, Mono only reproduction if music below 200hz, as well as the delicacy of the vinyl, and wow/flutter.
Personally, I think that CD's should be phased out in favor of SACD's, which offers a much higher sample rate and resolution than the specs that the RIAA dictated for digital audio CD's in the late 1970's. --Sadly I don't think this will happen, as SACD is a proprietary, copywrited format owned by Sony, hence it's nearly nonexistant adoption, save for a few high dollar players.
_________________
"Blessed are the Distinctly Alien, for they shall inherit the Earth." -- Genesis P. Orridge |
|
| Back to top |
|
D1nk0
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 12, 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 1589
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fogman wrote: | They both have their advantages as well as disadvantages. CD's when properly recorded and mastered have exceptional clarity with an exceedingly low noise floor in the RIAA specified 20hz-20khz range. That being said, Vinyl has a much greater frequeny range as there is no brickwall on the frequencies that it can produce unlike CD's. That being said, Vinyl also has limitations in the form of surface noice, Mono only reproduction if music below 200hz, as well as the delicacy of the vinyl, and wow/flutter.
Personally, I think that CD's should be phased out in favor of SACD's, which offers a much higher sample rate and resolution than the specs that the RIAA dictated for digital audio CD's in the late 1970's. --Sadly I don't think this will happen, as SACD is a proprietary, copywrited format owned by Sony, hence it's nearly nonexistant adoption, save for a few high dollar players. |
I have to say, I think that when it comes to Analog sound reproduction that the Coolest is Reel-to-Reel tape!
Hands Down . The have the greater frequency response that you expect from Analog AND they dont scratch,skip, or repeat like vinyl. NOTOMENTION that fact that Reel-tp-Reel tape recorders are AFAIK the Only audio playback devices that allow you to listen to music BACKWARDS  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Brittany2907
Self-Proclaimed Animal Lover
Joined: Jun 10, 2007
Age: 17
Posts: 3728
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lannesman wrote: | Cds make a better 'doink' sound? What the hell does that mean?
I guess soy burgers make a better "smush" sound, so they must be better than steak. |
ROFL!!! 
Back to the question,
I prefer CD basically because i've never heard vinyl.
My grandmother has a large record collection...but no player.
_________________
The hero is no braver than the ordinary man, but he is brave five minutes longer
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
You haven't failed until you quit trying.
- Unknown Author.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Alex440
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Nov 16, 2007
Age: 17
Posts: 58
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I like them both. I think it's about time the CD was replaced by DVD-Audio or SACD. I don't see SACD really taking off (only two replication plants in the world), but DVD-A is PCM just like CD, except at 24/192 when using stereo (rather than 16/44.1).
I think loud mastering is a problem with CDs and as long as we have digital media we'll probably have loud mastering. I don't like it, which is why I enjoy listening to vinyl records, especially from the 70s.
CDs were originally designed to be able to have massive dynamic contrast, and it works really well for classical music. The fidelity is great. Vinyl has far smaller ability to reproduce dynamic contrast and is less of a clone of the original sound, but the fact that there is no resolution, no finite frequency limit and the mechanical nature of it means that it colours the sound and makes it in a sense more musical.
However, as D1nk0 said, analogue tape is some pretty cool stuff. It is after all what almost every vinyl record was originally recorded onto, and it probably has something to do with the colouration of sound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
D1nk0
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 12, 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 1589
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex440 wrote: | I like them both. I think it's about time the CD was replaced by DVD-Audio or SACD. I don't see SACD really taking off (only two replication plants in the world), but DVD-A is PCM just like CD, except at 24/192 when using stereo (rather than 16/44.1).
I think loud mastering is a problem with CDs and as long as we have digital media we'll probably have loud mastering. I don't like it, which is why I enjoy listening to vinyl records, especially from the 70s.
CDs were originally designed to be able to have massive dynamic contrast, and it works really well for classical music. The fidelity is great. Vinyl has far smaller ability to reproduce dynamic contrast and is less of a clone of the original sound, but the fact that there is no resolution, no finite frequency limit and the mechanical nature of it means that it colours the sound and makes it in a sense more musical.
However, as D1nk0 said, analogue tape is some pretty cool stuff. It is after all what almost every vinyl record was originally recorded onto, and it probably has something to do with the colouration of sound. |
Exactly . Ive always wondered though about the sound quality of DATs. DAT=Digital Audio Tape. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
