|
6
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by Audiophiles have long argued for and against the allegedly superior sound quality of vinyl records compared to digital audio. Now the debate has touched a new generation as youths scramble to collect vinyl records to get both classics and contemporary releases. It's a fact that audio compression will technically degrade the music, but the loss in quality can be imperceptible. Fundamentally, analog and uncompressed digital recordings are made in different ways allowing for studio engineers to shape the sound for different purposes.
Add a Comment (14)
Email This
Message Author
According to this article, the RIAA has now officially recognized a vinyl sales resurgence.
Soon they'll be cracking down on clay potters whose styling needles are creating unauthorized reproductions of music in played in the background while throwing clay such that the audio is captured in the clay's grooves - akin to those copyright infringing record players!
RIAA Party Line: All you may do, is stare thoughtfully at the medium that contains the music you are not authorized to listen to.
RSS
spin the black circle by jandaman :: NR5 :: on 30 January 2008
i am going to have to side with vinyl...while digital does allow for easier transportation (like an ipod), the feeling u get from playing a record is so much more connected to the music, to me anyway...
personally, i have 4 turntables in my house...i may be one of a very limited amount of people who have a record player in their bathroom so i can rock out while taking a shower...
plus, u can't really get the same effect from listening to mp3's backwards... ;)
digital = clarity and duplicable by twabulldogg :: NR5 :: on 31 January 2008
I can understand why people feel nostalgia for vinyl, but that is the main argument for the its use. The background noise, reduced quality due to use, and the requirement for very high end equipment in order to experience the quality and clarity of digital music are clear disadvantages for vinyl.
I am also a big fan of digital codecs and portability, another advantage of digital.
RE: digital = clarity and duplicable by jandaman :: NR5 :: on 31 January 2008
here's the thing...vinyl quality doesn't necassarily degrade quality...i would argue, in fact, that vinyl has a better music quality...but it is just like with cd's...if u don't take care of them, they will ruin ur music...so as long as you take care of them, they will be fine...
as for the expense...to some people, it is a worthy investment...some people spend excess money on clothes or shoes or watches or cars...and to other, music is important enough to spend that kind of money....i have music playing during pretty much every waking hour of my day...
"Without music life would be a mistake." ~Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
RE: digital = clarity and duplicable by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 31 January 2008
I'm not going to make an argument on preference as to what sound you like better. For that matter, vinyl's sound (minus the scratches and pops, etc) can be simulated using an equalizer if need be.
As far as audio capability - vinyl cannot touch digital. The only limitation to digital's ability to reproduce sound perfectly is the sampling rate and channel width. Obviously one sample a second at 2 bits would be completely unintelligible and crappy. People can argue that your typical 192kps stream is impossible to discern from an original. Keep increasing the sampling and like our good friend calculus shows - it's the same as the original. You can't sound better than the original.
Differences in the sound are probably the result of studio engineering performing various degrees of acoustic compression. For example, you can hear a good 80s power ballad's low notes at the same volume as you hear them belting out the chorus ... big hair waving and all. Digital provides so much "original signal" and audio tools are so advanced that studios tend to alter the tracks more and more. Perhaps that is the sound that isn't as desirable.
But when you 'put the needle on the record (when the song beats go like this ... pump up the volume ... pump up the volume ... dance! dance!) ... where was I? That needle can only vibrate within a finite amount of the total sonic gamut. It's physically inferior by design. You may LIKE the sound. But it is capably inferior.
I'm actually surprised nobody uses a laser pick-up on the vinyl track. There would be zero wear & tear on the records over the course of time and it would be the exact same technology as a CD - just a change in light reflection based on pits and grooves. You could even make a digital record that way if you wanted to.
RE: digital = clarity and duplicable by jandaman :: NR5 :: on 31 January 2008
i understand the need for some to be as technologically savvy as possible...believe me, i love when the nerdiest of new gadgets are released...
but sometimes, tech isn't always the way to go...there is a certain nostalgia u get when listening to vinyl...maybe some are too young to remember listening to it, but it will always be a source of happy memories...the crackling sound only makes it more real...
the ipod will never replace my memories...
RE: digital = clarity and duplicable by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 31 January 2008
the ipod will never replace my memories...
I'm with you on the memories thing. When I was in college in Boston, it seems that all we did on weekend days was go from used record shop to used record shop. There were a lot of them in the eighties. I still have about 300 records or so moldering in my basement. Whenever my teenagers think they've stumbled on a great song they've heard, sometimes I'm able to leap down the stairs and emerge triumphant with the original vinyl in my hands. (Much to their feigned disgust but actual interest due to the album cover.)
I have to say I don't miss having to wet the record down with isopropyl alcohol to get a "good" tape recording. Dust was our enemy.
The weird thing is; whenever I hear a digital recording of a tune I haven't heard since the vinyl days, I tend to think; "That’s not how I remember hearing that; did they re-master it or something?" I think that might be the cause of a lot of people saying they liked vinyl better; our 'ears' have a memory for the way we heard it the first time.
Being able to carry an entire collection (ipod) from the house to the car does have its merits though.
RE: digital = clarity and duplicable by twabulldogg :: NR5 :: on 01 February 2008
there is a certain nostalgia u get when listening to vinyl
That is my entire point about the vinyl vs. digital debate. Vnutz provided the technical reasons why digital is far superior, but the only reason vinyl still gets as much attention as it does is nostalgia. It doesn't sound better, happy memories make people believe it is better because it takes you back to when you first heard the song.
I'm glad that the records take people back, but it is not a great argument.
RE: digital = clarity and duplicable by jandaman :: NR5 :: on 01 February 2008
I'm glad that the records take people back, but that is not a great argument.
As far as great arguments go, that is a pretty poor one...what kind of an elitist view you have to maintain to be so dismissive of any thoughts that you don't agree with. "hold on. this person doesn't agree with me. everything they say must be dumb because my opinion is a true representation of all intellectual, rational people."
I respect your need to have digital music...in my first response, i even granted the fact that its portability is even a big point...it isn't like i totally shun digital music...i have an ipod...i download music...my only point was, given the choice, i would rather listen to vinyl...
but then again, i guess i am just not capable of making solid arguments...
RE: digital = clarity and duplicable by twabulldogg :: NR5 :: on 01 February 2008
what kind of an elitist view you have to maintain to be so dismissive of any thoughts >that you don't agree with
I would say that is irrational and a bit of an overreaction. All I was merely trying to point out is the discussion is about which sounds better, digital music or vinyl. In support of your side of the story, nostalgia is nice but it doesn't necessarily mean that something is better just because it triggers fond memories.
"hold on. this person doesn't agree with me. everything they say must be dumb >because my opinion is a true representation of all intellectual, rational people."
A discussion about two opposing views means that people don't agree, but simply disagreeing with someone's view or saying that an argument is not solid doesn't mean the other person is dumb.
I have fond memories of watching movies in a VCR, but I don't think anyone would have the same argument about DVD vs VHS movie viewing.
RE: digital = clarity and duplicable by jandaman :: NR5 :: on 01 February 2008
nostalgia is nice but it doesn't necassarily mean that something is better
this is exactly why i brought up the elitist attitude...who are u to be dismissive of what justifies better for me?..i can understand u not agreeing...but to say that it is not a good argument is elitist...how is it that u get to define the justification of good and bad?..if u don't like broccoli, does that mean since i do that i am wrong...i mean, according to ur logic, just because i think it tastes great is not an acceptable argument for why it is better than a chocolate bar...i mean...the chocolate bar must be superior because it is easier to transport...u don't have to cook it...people generally tend to like it better...so all people that like broccoli are wrong...
that is pretty elitist to me...
RE: digital = clarity and duplicable by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 03 February 2008
there is a certain nostalgia u get when listening to vinyl
the ipod will never replace my memories...
Again, like I mentioned before, my argument is not against subjective personal preference, only the reality of objective quality. I think twabulldogg's example of VHS versus DVD is right on the money. Even if there were something nostalgic about liking the "softened" edges from analog or even the fuzziness at the screen edges from head tracking ... it's still inferior to digital.
I found some good articles/links supporting the differences between the audio technologies. One digital plug-in will even alter a waveform to mimic the vinyl effect. I think it is telling when the list of configurable alterations sound like things you normally want to minimize. There's an article on the history of vinyl that goes against CDs though it sounds like they don't understand acoustics - the human ear can't discern what they perceive as faults and they incorrectly describe the harmonics on the vinyl. Part of what people believe is the warmth on vinyl is simply the recording of harmonic frequencies on the groove - an effect of the stylus. In theory, an exact reproduction of the music would not have that harmonic unless the instruments produced it (which would be captured by the digital inputs). So it's ironic that part of the preferred sound is an artifact of the player/recorder rather than the real music. We all hate wikipedia here, but they have a good technical section on the capabilities of various vinyl's through the years. It seemed like a much smaller frequency response - although I would think it would have to be bigger than the 10Khz indicated otherwise music wouldn't sound remotely correct.
But anyway, as mentioned, preference is personal. Perfection is math. :-)
RE: digital = clarity and duplicable by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 03 February 2008
Doh - I forgot this one: http://www.unca.edu/banner/Arts/3.html