Doug,
The thing is, CDs do not destroy vinyl. That's why there's a debate. I think higher resolution digital will finally destroy not just vinyl but analog altogether. It has just taken more than 25 years to happen. It's happening as we speak.
Many engineers already think digital is better than analog. Bob Ludwig claimed years ago that he could hear no difference between the Rolling Stones original master tapes and DSD masters. Former Atlantic mastering engineer Barry Diament has said recording at 24/192 resolution is better than analog ever was.
Vinyl's days are numbered.
The thing is, CDs do not destroy vinyl. That's why there's a debate. I think higher resolution digital will finally destroy not just vinyl but analog altogether. It has just taken more than 25 years to happen. It's happening as we speak.
Many engineers already think digital is better than analog. Bob Ludwig claimed years ago that he could hear no difference between the Rolling Stones original master tapes and DSD masters. Former Atlantic mastering engineer Barry Diament has said recording at 24/192 resolution is better than analog ever was.
Vinyl's days are numbered.
Of course you have heard it because its the accurate truth and you can can not get over that fact 😉
A really good vinyl system can be enjoyed so instead of posting online trying to convince people why not just enjoy it.
As for measurement queers?? A truely accurate in room response makes for a superior room, superior setup. Enjoy your crap analog, Im not interested in flawed playback.
Lucky for the rest of the world the average age of a vinyl lover is about 55 so we only have to endure the wrath of the vinyl hoard for only so many more years 😉
Last edited:
No doubt.
As for CDs destroying Vinyl, depends on your point of view.This is business 101 stuff....not some artsy audiophile arguing about their music sound better on vinyl, that should never be the debate.... The thread title was "Turntable better then CD" not "LP mastering better then CD mastering"...we all agree on the second one!!
1. Accuracy.
2. Reliability.
3. Portability.
4. Accessibility.
For every quality Vinyl setup there are 10 that absolutely suck, LPs scratched, Systems breaking down....wear and tear should not even exist in audio any more we are too advanced for that.
And lets not forget the overall volume sales differential over the past 30 years...It does not take more then a grade 8 math lesson to know which technology destroyed the other. YES CDs destroy Vinyl in the REAL world a long, long time ago.
Audiophile vinyl lovers are not the first or last word on this topic because there is not enough of that as a percentage of the population to matter.
Last edited:
A bit more sag, and you will no longer be treading on other people's (sensitive) cojones. 
I prefer the Houston variety myself.
I prefer the Houston variety myself.
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks for the laugh, but be careful in following your your own cocky beliefs.
Words like "Fukushima" pop in my head when I read such naive thoughts.
Last edited:
A bit more sag, and you will no longer be treading on other people's (sensitive) cojones.
I'm already in danger of sitting down on them. No loose shorts for me.🙁
John
Look it is very easy to understand.
CD haz 80 minutes of music compressed on 700 mb, this is 700 million symbols
700 million symbols is 5.6 billion ones and zeroes.
One symbol on a cd (that is one byte) iz less than one scratch on the vinyl surface. That is because one scratch can produce a full sine (or other) wave (or if you wish one cone cycle) translated into cone motion of the speaker membrane and one byte is not sufficient to do that!
And the waveform is coded into the groove form. Imagine how much bytes would it take to describe a single 2D geometry form. Let it be the simplest - two slopes (ramps) with different angles and an R shaped top. This is 4 subsequent points, two lying on the same height (the base), two higher points and a radius. Even in special language and with a pace maker present this is 5 points and an R value, the fifth point is the center of the top. So the most economical way to describe one cycle is with 6 bytes.
And we all know that in a CD the waveforms are not contained as vector values, but rather they are represented as raster graphics (stairs) - length and height of the next step. - That is allot of bytes per single membrane sycle! 😉
One side of a vinyl record contains more information and more precise one than a whole CD.
So not that lasers and processors are not hi-tech, they just need scale and volume to show their advantage. With 700 mb there just is not enough data to recreate the original signal properly.
That's all.
Everything other than that is practical issues of the daily use.
A curious fact: If you take digital copy of an old film reel let it be 35x35mm, more than 80% of the information carried by the original fim will be lost and unobtainable from the digital copy. The film has resolution near the size of an silver atom. The same with vinyl, the same with tapes. Not to mention old 100x100 mm photo film standards and exceptionally not to mention the big glass plaques of the first photo cameras... - they permit almost infinite zoom and only sufficient lighting limits zoom from one degree further.
Analog is not unbeatable, it's just hard to beat it. And remember that 100 years ago we were travelling with steam engines and 1000 years ago audiophiles went only to live performances and didn't have our problems. Turntable is a 100+ years old technology and digital is barely 30 years old.
CD haz 80 minutes of music compressed on 700 mb, this is 700 million symbols
700 million symbols is 5.6 billion ones and zeroes.
One symbol on a cd (that is one byte) iz less than one scratch on the vinyl surface. That is because one scratch can produce a full sine (or other) wave (or if you wish one cone cycle) translated into cone motion of the speaker membrane and one byte is not sufficient to do that!
And the waveform is coded into the groove form. Imagine how much bytes would it take to describe a single 2D geometry form. Let it be the simplest - two slopes (ramps) with different angles and an R shaped top. This is 4 subsequent points, two lying on the same height (the base), two higher points and a radius. Even in special language and with a pace maker present this is 5 points and an R value, the fifth point is the center of the top. So the most economical way to describe one cycle is with 6 bytes.
And we all know that in a CD the waveforms are not contained as vector values, but rather they are represented as raster graphics (stairs) - length and height of the next step. - That is allot of bytes per single membrane sycle! 😉
One side of a vinyl record contains more information and more precise one than a whole CD.
So not that lasers and processors are not hi-tech, they just need scale and volume to show their advantage. With 700 mb there just is not enough data to recreate the original signal properly.
That's all.
Everything other than that is practical issues of the daily use.
A curious fact: If you take digital copy of an old film reel let it be 35x35mm, more than 80% of the information carried by the original fim will be lost and unobtainable from the digital copy. The film has resolution near the size of an silver atom. The same with vinyl, the same with tapes. Not to mention old 100x100 mm photo film standards and exceptionally not to mention the big glass plaques of the first photo cameras... - they permit almost infinite zoom and only sufficient lighting limits zoom from one degree further.
Analog is not unbeatable, it's just hard to beat it. And remember that 100 years ago we were travelling with steam engines and 1000 years ago audiophiles went only to live performances and didn't have our problems. Turntable is a 100+ years old technology and digital is barely 30 years old.
Last edited:
It sounds somewhat diffferent if formulated as the technologies being around 1-1/4 and 3/4 century old, respectively.
No, not from a practical sense. I spent many years doing high resolution scans of fine art. I'd take my 105 megapixel 4x5 camera over film any day. Better resolution, better color, better dynamic range. Much, much easier to achieve accurate results. Only an 8x10 transparency comes close (very close).
Scanning film past about 4000DPI just gives you more grain, not more real detail. I'm talking about a real 4000DPI on a drum scanner, not flatbed. 2000DPI on a 4x5 is really enough.
Consumer formats have always been "dumbed down". It makes them affordable and usable. That's as true for film as it is for digital cameras LPs, CDs, DVDs, etc. But times they are a-changing. It's not hard to 96/24 playback at home these days, if you can get the recordings.
From the recent recordings I hear, digital is superb. But it took 20 years or more to get there. How long did it take the phonograph record to get to the state of the art LP?
The tittle of this thread obnoxious and provocative to all people with brains.
You LP pushers come a long way from the Direct To Wax Cylinder a la Edison, but still you're worshipping the
wrong medium. In reality is no such thing as Direct to Disc, almost all source material to gramophone record
manufacturing is coming from the king of analog, the Reel to Reel tape, and the rest is from digital
recordings. After the CLEAN sound (and you should really experience it , least once) going to a cutting lathe
and all the electronics associated with it and your playback mechanism, you only getting a fraction of the
original recording quality. I understand it's not easy to give up on your shiny gramophone ,costing an arm
and a leg ,but even a Transrotor Gravity at 70,000 Euro will not improve the situation. So you really should
direct your analog prayers to this baby:
You LP pushers come a long way from the Direct To Wax Cylinder a la Edison, but still you're worshipping the
wrong medium. In reality is no such thing as Direct to Disc, almost all source material to gramophone record
manufacturing is coming from the king of analog, the Reel to Reel tape, and the rest is from digital
recordings. After the CLEAN sound (and you should really experience it , least once) going to a cutting lathe
and all the electronics associated with it and your playback mechanism, you only getting a fraction of the
original recording quality. I understand it's not easy to give up on your shiny gramophone ,costing an arm
and a leg ,but even a Transrotor Gravity at 70,000 Euro will not improve the situation. So you really should
direct your analog prayers to this baby:
Attachments
But what if the mic pop is part of the performance? The message I seem to be getting is that LPs are OK for 'smooth' recordings; ideal for Mantovani perhaps.
T101, you seem very hung up on this idea that analogue = infinite, while digital = finite.
I pointed out earlier that stereo bass has to be mixed to mono before being transferred to vinyl, so I guess the formula is now:
info held by an LP = infinity - (everything with stereo bass in it)
And there's the small matter of having to de-ess strong treble content.
So it's now:
info held by an LP = infinity - (everything with stereo bass in it) - (everything with strong treble)
But wait, a 78 also has the property of infinite analog storage, doesn't it..?
Not a hardship in terms of Toole's work that shows for best bass (in room), one needs multiple mono woofers below 80 Hz.
dave
Difficult to have this kind of discussions here , the naysayers , well most of them, don't have an hi-fi system and never ever listens to music for any kind of evaluation.
If they cant hear it on their 80.00 PC speakers then ...............🙄
Agree, However 24/192 and above is making a really good case IMO.... 🙂
Hmmmm...
Besides your lousy spelling, if you're the example of people with brains, I think I'll pass.
😀
You don't get out much, do you? But you're obviously still learning, so you get a pass on this one.
I certainly have experienced it and a good vinyl recording gets it a lot closer than a host of CDs that I've heard. Due to your limited experience, knowledge and overlooking your rather insulting remarks and attitude, I'll just assume that you don't know what you're talking about.
Thank you for being so understanding, coming from you it's deeply appreciated.
Actually, for a consumer product it's probably very nice. Is that what you listen to? Come to think of it, what type of gear do you employ for listening? It must be phenomenal!
Sincerely,
TerryO
Last edited:
Try one of these instead:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
John
- Status
- Not open for further replies.