Those people who say that LPs sound better are either deaf (which is not unexpected due to their age) or are just nostalgic because LPs are just inferior and yield a lower sound quality even with the bestest and most expensive equipmentI wouldn't say necessarily inferior though, it just sounds different. For certain songs it's way better on CD but others actually sound better on LP (imo).
But they have an advantage: they can be made out of chocolate. Can you do that with CDs or mp3? Haha I didn't think so!!!
Vinyl does not preserve the sound better. It has a inferior dynamic range, any dust on vinyl discs creates unwanted noises, the mastering proccess is much more complicated, etc. They're inferior. It's just that today sound engineers like to compress everything to make CDs as loud as they can and this is a marketing strategy, not a characteristic of CDs
Kaworu hit it on the head; most shit these days is overmixed on CD but vinyl tends to preserve the sound better but yeah just givin kaworu rep.Well, yes. Loudness is a contagious disease, nowdays. :fogetshrug:
My dad has a really nice record player and stereo in our basement that sounds really good. I've heard him listening to records growing up, and there is just a certain warm quality that comes with listening to records that sounds really good. As much as I like it though, I don't really have the time to sit down to a record much, and it seems like a lot of effort to go through when I could just play it on my computer or something like that. I don't own any records, but it would be pretty neat to listen to some.
The other problem that I feel though, is that CDs are already expensive enough (and I have really died down on actually purchasing music anymore, it's too expensive), and records cost a lot more than those.
this is my vinyl collection. one i bought, one my brother bought for me because the cover is pretty visibly amazingPilgrimage is so awesome... I'd like to have that in LP format hehe. But I'm currently checking for Swallow The Sun, My Dying Bride, Anathema and Wolves In The Throne Room.
(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/farm3.static.flickr.com/2118/2170561728_b4c279be93_o.jpeg)
Technically if you get a vinyl in mint condition, it will have a better sound quality than a CD. A CD takes sample of sounds and clumps them next to each other. The higher the sample rate, the smaller the samples will be, therefore sounding closer to the actual recording.
Vinyls don't work in the same way. All the sound is burnt to the Vinyl in it's true form, therefore it is the true form of music.
It's anal and you probably won't be able to tell the difference nowadays, but Digital will always be a representation of the 'real' thing.
If that was true then you would be able to tell the difference between a recording with a 44khz sample rate and a 96Khz one, but you can't
No it's not, the molecules of the PVC used to make vinyl discs are so big vinyls actually have a lower sound resolution than CDs
Well if you listen something with a very low sample rate (8khz) then you will hear a difference. But to a trained ear you should be able to hear the difference in sound quality from a CD to one from a DVD in a movie or something.
Well CD's burn to digital (1s and 0s) whereas on a record it burns the sound wave to the vinyl so when the needle runs of the bumps it has made, the vibrations make the sound. Digital recreates this by playing little recording samples of this bunched all together and converted to digital.
Think of it as, vinyl is a painting where the paint has been brushed on naturally. A CD is more like someone has printed that painting off using a printer. All the colours are represented by little dots of colour bunched close together (much like samples of sound in a digital recording)
It's because the highest frequency a 8khz can capture is 4 khz, so it doesn't record anything above that, I don't know the science and theory behind that, but the sampling rate must be the highest frequency you expect to record multiplied by two, and since the highest frequency most humans can hear is around 22 khz, 44 khz is usually enough.
With 96 khz the highest frequency you can capture is 48 khz but thats way beyond what someone can hear, so maybe a cat or a mutant could tell a difference between 44 and 96 khz but most people can't
Frequency is a measure of the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit time
I might be stupid on several other subjects but I know how a CD or a vinyl disc works without using painting analogiesaccording to this thread apparently not!
Hahaha very funny. But if you read on how CDs and vinyls and sampling rates (for audio) work you'll find out I'm right.yeah thanks for telling the music technology student to go read up.
Then if you know so much then please explain how they work then so that everyone knows them instead of LOL IM MUSIC TECHNOLOGY STUDENT IM BETTA THAN YOUThere's nothing I can say that Lyndon hasn't already said (quite brilliantly, I might add), you should start listening to him!
inri cheetos is kind of dumb as shit don't bother.
LPs would only be "better just because they're analog" in an ideal world, in theory only, in the real world they're not.Who said that? I see not those words!
I don't remember saying anything about "bit depth" eitherAudio bit depth is the maximum dynamic range of digital audio (as is on a CD), but is just a projected measurement (as is about to be explained), while with analog audio an actual measurement can be used. This is because with modern recording techniques, unused with vinyl records, the dynamic range is limited with audio level compressors, allowing for louder volume but diminishing the dynamic range and making a recording less exciting and somewhat stunted (as was said earlier). Therefore CDs actually have less of a dynamic range than vinyl records. So...
LPs would only be "better just because they're analog" in an ideal world, in theory only, in the real world they're not....is actually the wrong way round. CDs lose.
But nobody is forcing anyone to compress the sound before putting it in a CD, rockman. This is just a marketing strategy that didn't exist when LPs weren't obsolete.This is correct, but no one does because it is the modern recording standard to use level compressors. It's not a marketing strategy, it's an institutional convention. It's also not one rule for us and another for you, Inri, as you said earlier that...
LPs would only be "better just because they're analog" in an ideal world...CDs would only be better in an ideal world, where level compressors were no longer used.
Also, blind tests have confirmed that listeners cannot tell the difference between the quality of a CD and a LP, therefore CD wins again for several other reasonsThis brings it down to opinion again. Also this is a very shaky conclusion, considering that you are not specifying these reasons, something which you asked me to do (rudely, I might add!)
This is correct, but no one does because it is the modern recording standard to use level compressors. It's also not one rule for us and another for you, Inri, as you said
earlier that......CDs would only be better in an ideal world, where level compressors were no longer used.
This brings it down to opinion again. Also this is a very shaky conclusion, considering that you are not specifying these reasons, something which you asked me to do (rudely, I might add!)
So, one must disregard the specific content of the vinyl record or CD in question, which can vary dramatically. With the same audio content, however, vinyl wins every time.
I'm not sure where you are failing to see the problem here. I actually thought it was common knowledge that Vinyls, in mint condition have a truer sound. Why do you think they still manafacture a limited supply of vinyls if the quality was inferior to digital?djs
But CDs do not need them to workI didn't say they did, straw man.
But what if they put compressed sounds in a LP. Will it become a worse recording medium just because of that?But what if they put uncompressed sounds on a CD? Will it become a better recording medium just because of that?
You cannot recycle vinyl discs.Giving them to others when you no longer want them. They can also be fashioned into a (http://keetsa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/cuff-from-recycled-vinyl-record.jpg) number (http://keetsa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/vintage-record-bowls-1.jpg) of (http://computershopper.com/shoptalk/i/lg-case1a.jpg) other (http://www.greatgreengoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/300.jpg) objects (http://modculture.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/28/recordbook.jpg).
CDs are smaller.What does this have to do with anything?
You can uses CDs as mirrors, you can even make a periscope with themWhat does this have to do with anything?
You can pirate CDs at homeJust as you can with vinyl records.
You can record CDs at home and it doesn't even need some huge and complicated machineryYeah, computers aren't huge and complicated at all.
I didn't say they did, straw man.
But what if they put uncompressed sounds on a CD? Will it become a better recording medium just because of that?
Giving them to others when you no longer want them.
What does this have to do with anything?
What does this have to do with anything?
Just as you can with vinyl records.
Yeah, computers aren't huge and complicated at all.
Yes but nobody cares about current day recording and mastering practicesMaybe you don't, because it doesn't fit your crusade against vinyl records! It is, however, utterly relevant to this discussion.
No, it will remain the same thing, it will still be better than vinyl discsSo you keep saying, yet you have not provided any viable evidence.
What if someone forgets them under the sun and they become warpped and unplayable?The same can happen with CDs. Also interesting how you conveniently ignored what was after that, which I believe answers your question very well.
Well how many LPs can you put inside your pocket? I can put a lot of CDs inside mine and I like that, it's more practical.Christ, how big are your pockets? I can't fit any CDs inside mine.
It's just an advantage they haveIt serves no purpose in the context of this argument.
But it will have to be either into a CD or a cassete tapeUntrue! (http://www.pcworld.com/product/pricing/prtprdid,56340615/pricing.html) You should do your research before spouting things! (I have one of these, they are great)
photographs of superceded vinyl record production machineryI didn't say that, straw man. That also doesn't make a computer any smaller nor any less complicated.
If your computer is larger than this then I must admit it's HUGE
So you keep saying, yet you have not provided any viable evidence.
The same can happen with CDs. Also interesting how you conveniently ignored what was after that, which I believe answers your question very well.
Christ, how big are your pockets? I can't fit any CDs inside mine.
Untrue! You should do your research before spouting things! (I have one of these, they are great)
I didn't say that, straw man. That also doesn't make a computer any smaller nor any less complicated.
F*CK every scientist and sound engineer in the world has proved that CDs have higher quality and you say I didn't provide any viable evidence, I do not understand that!It's all very well you saying that, but that does not necessarily make it true. Provide evidence, don't just talk about it.
I think the PVC molecules of your vinyls have caused you a brain disorderNow you're just being infantile.
Warped CDs can be recycled, LPs can'tI provided those links for a reason.
If you wore cargo pants you would be able to put a lot of CDs inside themIf you wore giant trousers you'd be able to fit vinyls in the pockets. This still has nothing to do with whether either are better.
Wouldn't transforming it into a DIGITAL sound file have the same effect of putting it in a CD?Yes, it would, that is my point! It doesn't make it any different to a CD in this regard.
Yes, they're already small and uncomplicated enough.Are you saying that computers aren't large, complicated pieces of machinery that require care with their usage?
I'll stop now because it's no use trying to argue with LP purists.Get off your high horse and provide any evidence for the "facts" you've spouted. There's no point trying to argue with idiots, either, so prove otherwise.
You cannot recycle vinyl discs.
CDs are smaller.
You can uses CDs as mirrors, you can even make a periscope with them
You can pirate CDs at home
You can record CDs at home and it doesn't even need some huge and complicated machinery
But they still have the disavantage that they cannot be made of chocolate like LPs
"BAN INRI CHEETOS"
god you are stupid steel
- CDs have a better dynamic range than LPs
- You can't tell the difference between 96khz and 44khz sampling rates
- CDs have a higher fidelity than LPs and therefore they have a better sound quality
- The fact of thinking LPs are better is subjective
- CDs are better period
like seriously, he says "guys sure cds are only accurate to a certain extent [cause of 1s and 0s and storage size and sampling rates etc but i dont know how he phrased it] but pvc molecules have errors at that microscopic of a level etc" and then the response is AREYOU EVEN LISTENING? WHAT ABOUT SAMPLING RATES? TRAIN YOUR EARS? WHY DO THEY KEEP MAKING VINYL THEN??? VINYL!
also, bort: have you ever heard of CDJs? you can scratch, change tempo etc on a CD.too recent of an invention to have any impact, and no, vinyl djs use vinyl because djs have used vinyl for years and years and years and it's a cultural thing more than anything else
Vinyl DJs use Vinyls becuase they say it has better sound quality. It's anal, but can be true.
Vinyl DJs use Vinyls becuase they say it has better sound quality. It's anal, but can be true.
I never said that lyndon. You're hallucinating.
Hahaha very funny. But if you read on how CDs and vinyls and sampling rates (for audio) work you'll find out I'm right.
I DJ on my student radio station and all of the DJs that DJ at our nightclub use CDs.
CDs are definitley more popular than vinyls. Not all albums come out on CDs and when they do, it's usually only a limited amount :/
But google for Nyquist Theorem, you'll find out that what I said about sampling rate is theoretical at best, which is what I said.
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/question487.htmyeah well thats theoretically, I dont know about you but I find it pretty hard to keep the dust and shit off of vinyls.
That link pretty much backs up and explains what I have already written about how CD audio is inferior to audio on a vinyl.
Technically if you get a vinyl in mint condition, it will have a better sound quality than a CD. A CD takes sample of sounds and clumps them next to each other. The higher the sample rate, the smaller the samples will be, therefore sounding closer to the actual recording.
Vinyls don't work in the same way. All the sound is burnt to the Vinyl in it's true form, therefore it is the true form of music.
It's anal and you probably won't be able to tell the difference nowadays, but Digital will always be a representation of the 'real' thing.
yeah well thats theoretically, I dont know about you but I find it pretty hard to keep the dust and shit off of vinyls.Dust cloth!