, 
What is your definition of modern vinyl?
In 1980 to '82 cutting lathe manufacturers replaced the look-ahead tapedecks with their impractical long tape paths with digital delays to improve sound quality. So most records cut since then have been digitized at that point.
What the cutter head, press, vinyl etc add is technically distortion (and mono bass >200Hz).
Turns out some people like distortion which is fine.
Direct to Metal (DMM) cuts back then were also accused of having harsh treble. This was due to the lack of spring back in metal compared to lacquer ie no rolled of highs as was normal.
Basically a 'problem' in mastering if at all rather than the medium itself.
The magic happens and is preserved (or not) in the production.
Purely analogue production severely limits the ability to edit after the fact unlike digital.
Overzealous editing and removal of tiny, perceived errors is what kills a recording, not the medium it is released on later.
The best, most 'magical' records have been recorded 'as live' which was a must in the early days due to technological restrictions.
There are very few done that way now because in digital you can edit, chop up and otherwise mess with it without immediate punishment in SQ.
Technically the quality is still there but artistically the magic has gone.
In theory,
every time you play a record is each play slightly different?
Also does a second hand record sound the same as when it was new?
I never really thought about it..
Regards
M. Gregg
every time you play a record is each play slightly different?
Also does a second hand record sound the same as when it was new?
I never really thought about it..
Regards
M. Gregg
Hi and of course. But for instance i sprayed some cds and the sound was different ... i can say better or worse but certainly different.
Same cd and system of course.
well what kind of choice we have really ?
if you are not in LP the only choice is CD, good or bad
This does not mean that it is good at all.
Not only ... a cd done well could be very good.
A very good copy of a bad sounding master is still bad sounding.
Not only ... i have the strong feeling that with digital the processing of the signal is even more pushed than with analog with very bad results.
Like exagerrating with dressing on food ... you will end destroying the original taste.
I have never been much on vinyl actually.
But i can say another thing.
My friend has a decent analog rig. He found a really nice Pioneer Dat player.
He made some recording of some very nice LPs.
I love the result on DAT completely. If i hade to choose i would have gone with the dat for convenience without any regret.
Since then i love 16/48 format a lot ...
I want to buy a recorder and try something similar myself.
I think that 16/48 is much better than 16/44.1
Thanks a lot, gino
Hi and thanks for the reply.
For one think is very delicate. The reflecting layer can be easily damaged.
And what about error correction systems ? the interpolate data ?
so the replace missing data with calculated ones ?
sorry but i am not convinced
I think that reading from a solid memory is a much reliable process.
Thanks again, gino
Hi and yes this is sure.
Dat files sound so much better. Even just 16/48 is much better than 16/44.1
16/48 is the format of dvd soundtrack ... there is no comparison on musical pieces ... no comparison at all.
Much much more musical.
The cd format is clearly not enough. But for most music we have to live with that ... everything is on cd.
Thanks again, gino
Who said anything about modern vinyl? I've been buying records since 1974, I have thousaands of all analog records. I'm sure that there are a few stray digital LPs (Brothers in Arms) in my collection but I don't buy LPs if I know that they are digital. If an album is recorded digitally, and I like it, i will buy a CD (or hi res version if available). I do not see the point of converting digital files to vinyl.
I will say I get most enjoyment out of my 1950s ebay and record store finds just because it has no right to sound that good! I thank the audio gods that a lot of great recordings from that era are being made available in remastered CD box sets as I just cant afford mint originals. currently saving for the decca mono years box set.
So for me modern means several things. Firstly the mono-stereo transition. then the dynagroove debacle after the oil crisis then the post CD rot setting in.
Actually they do viceversa ... Sony did that for their digital archive.
To preserve valuable analog recordings for future generations.
Analog reminds me always of this situation ...
Regards, gino
This has been debunked so many times that I can't work up the energy to do it yet again. I'll just leave it with, "no, there's just about nothing that you've said which is correct."
Yes. If I listen to my vinyl set up, I can listen all day.
If I listen to my V high quality digital set up, I start to lose interest after a couple of hours. The music is something I really like. Boredom and a sort agitation set in and I find something else to do
This to me is the digital fatigue
If I listen to my V high quality digital set up, I start to lose interest after a couple of hours. The music is something I really like. Boredom and a sort agitation set in and I find something else to do
This to me is the digital fatigue
How can a digital set up be simultaneously 'very high quality' and only listenable for a couple of hours at a stretch? Perhaps an unimaginably higher quality DAC is called for?
DCS Elgar and upsampler with a Theta transport. Auditioned against anything at the time. When I though analogue was finally defunk.
I feel that this is not something that can be measured more felt
I feel that this is not something that can be measured more felt
Ah the DAC's of the massively oversampled and noise shaped variety. Say no more - try something with a multibit DAC chip (or 8).
After a couple of hours listening to music, don't you get bored anyways and feel like doing something else? Perhaps this yardstick is skewed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.