Oh joy! I've been waiting for the ol' vinyl vs. CD thread to pop up ever
since I started doing noise removal on vinyl recordings, and discovered that
vinyl's even worse than I've let on in the past...
At 10:58 PM 4/21/98 -0700, robot wrote:
quoted 19 lines David Hodgson wrote:
>David Hodgson wrote:
>
>> on the subject of minidisic
>> what do other people think of the quality of Minidisc
>
>All compression is evil. Everyone should buy vinyl as their TOP
>priority! Goddard once said that film was truth 24 frames per second.
>Actually we all know that film could not possibly be TRUTH, and in fact
>Goddard was commenting on how easy it is to lie with film. Digital
>recording is the same! It can not possibly do music justice even if the
>sampling rate is above our "comprehensable" rate and the bit depth is
>"enough for us not to tell the difference"... It is still digitized and
>therefore not the pure sound. If you add digital compression into the
>picture this problem is ESCELATED!
>
>At the same time, I do admit that I own a CD player and own quite a few
>CD's. Their portability is invaluable for on-the-road listening (in the
>car, snowboarding, biking, running...). However, in these settings the
>all the background noise renders perfect reproduction unimportant.quoted 8 lines I know I am in the minority here, but I own a Technics 1200 with an
>I know I am in the minority here, but I own a Technics 1200 with an
>Ortofon needle and a JBL power amp and JBL studio monitors. While,
>these are not the finest nor the top of the line pieces, I can
>DEFINATELY hear the suberp sound quality and dynamic range that I get
>out of vinyl over my CD player plugged into the same system. Albeit, I
>don't have a top quality CD player but for the $500 price tag of the
>turntable + the needle vs. the $500 price tag of my CD player I CAN tell
>which is better.quoted 7 lines On 22 Apr 98, siliconvortex wrote
>On 22 Apr 98, siliconvortex wrote
>
>> a cd, which is (given good mastering) an exact digital copy
>
>There you said it "DIGITAL". All cut up into millions of little
>bits and jammed back together, not one smooth sound curve.
>It samples at 44 thousand.1 times per second....quoted 7 lines or vinyl, which has been converted from dat to analogue, cut with
>> or vinyl, which has been converted from dat to analogue, cut with
>> a lathe into a piece of metal, then pressed into a piece of soft
>> plastic, then tracked through a dust filled groove with a diamond
>> connected to a magnet, then put through an riaa equaliser, before
>> you hear the end result. which did you say sounds better?
>
>It's not quite as simple as that.quoted 2 lines The actual vinyl has "give" in it, meaning that the walls of the
>The actual vinyl has "give" in it, meaning that the walls of the
>vinyl contract and expand quoted 16 lines - causing a certain amount of compression
>- causing a certain amount of compression
>that happens in the vinyl itself which sounds attractive to the
>human ear. It's called "Wellie" (coming from the visual image of a
>kick up the bum with a wellington boot). If you go above clip in
>digital you get a terrible distortion but in any analogue medium it
>givies it more 'wellie'.
>
>That's why certain recording artists deliberately go from their
>digital master onto 1/2" analogue tape to saturate the tape which
>gives it a much better "warmer" sound - and then transfer it to CD
>from THAT. And many rock artists only record directly to analogue
>multi-track tape and then use the Apogee UV22 process to achieve
>analogue-like "warmth" on CD. The mastering process on the CD is
>the most important : there is a *big loss* between original analog
>mastering to digital - unless 24-bit mastering is used (which is
>already available).quoted 2 lines A well-mastered vinyl 12" can contain harmonics up to 30 kHz, which
>A well-mastered vinyl 12" can contain harmonics up to 30 kHz, which
>would be chopped dead on CD at 20 kHz. Brick wall.