The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Vinyl sounds good, but do we have to listen to it? Dynamics Plugins
Old 24th March 2014
  #61
Lives for gear
 
47radAR's Avatar
 

I'd like to ask you mastering guys: What do you predict as the next standard in format? What medium? What sample rate/bit depth? How will it be distributed? How will you guys handle it/adjust to it?
Old 24th March 2014
  #62
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
Where are all these people? Do you mean the 30.000 geeks loudly protecting their own personal idea of "good old times" and ridiculously outdated idea of "audiophile materialism"? These guys in contrast the 1-3 billion casual listeners who are perfectly happy with what they have today? (mp3/cd)
LOL.

Man, you are completely out of touch with the audiophile consumer market. It is singlehandedly responsible for keeping all analog formats above water, and brought back vacuum tubes from the dead. Without them the mastering studios will have sold off all of their cutting lathes.

The existence of 5 and even 6 figure turntables is for whom exactly? Those who want to have a cool looking table to go with their cool looking LP jacket?

Newsflash -- you can't get/impress chicks with high end gear. Even if you could, a car/watch is cheaper.

Vinyl these days was never intended for the casual listener. Most of the hardcore vinyl guys still don't listen to vinyl as much as digital in their daily lives.

The majority of the world do not listen to music with passion. There are more people with high end cars and watches than nice audio systems, this is a fact.

It's very hard to get the average person into high end audio/recordings if they do not already have a disposition for it. Believe me, I've tried.

These are not subjective opinions, but facts.

Vinyl is the very definition of niche, which will only be supported if there's a legitimate demand.

Look at manual transmissions in cars now. They've finally come up with semi-automatic non torque converter transmissions that outperform stickshifts to an extent that they are obsolete from a performance standpoint.

And yet, there's still a small diehard contingency that is frustrated with this and still desiring 3 pedals for the rest of their lives. The driving experience at anything less than race track conditions IMO is still more enjoyable with stickshifts.

Stickshifts have slowly been eliminated from exotics due to money concerns -- if you can't make enough of them it starts to be a money losing proposition to offer them. Analog releases do not tend to be the same way, and I'd imagine if they did, they too would be extinct.
Old 31st March 2014
  #63
Here for the gear
 
LP2CD's Avatar
 

Mastered to vinyl? How about mastered to acetate?

"The next standard in format?" "The very definition of niche?" This blows me away:

The 78 Project
Music |

Take THAT Focusrite! What's old is new once again!
Old 3rd April 2014
  #64
Gear Addict
 
skoolafish's Avatar
i don't know my category, i just grew up with the format. i love digital music too, but i just enjoy everything about vinyl. always have
Old 4th April 2014
  #65
Lives for gear
 
Praxisaxis's Avatar
 

Lots of good replies here, but I haven't read the whole thread.

Some points...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDrive View Post
couldn't we just master to vinyl, then make a digital transfer from the vinyl?
Absolutely. Think of when we record an analogue synth to the computer... we're essentially doing the same thing - capturing the nuance from that synth. HOWEVER... this completely dispenses with your "point 1", which I think counts for more than you're assuming.

There are a bunch of other factors, aside from your 1), 2) and 3), which you've not mentioned (probably because they're not as important). For example, bouncing to digital means it'll play exactly the same way every time - not true of playback on a record player. Also, the "ritual" (ie point 1) means that we are putting more emphasis on listening. Making it digital is a step away from that, for many people (as time has told).

I mean, I think that vinyl is in because of largely good reasons, and not because everyone is a twit!

ALSO... slightly off topic. It would pay for many people to remember that "analogue" refers to a bunch of very different technology platforms. For instance... Just because the OP dispelled the myth about digital recording media in his "point 2" does NOT mean he (or anyone else) is concluding that analogue synths are inferior.
Old 4th April 2014
  #66
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LP2CD View Post
"The next standard in format?" "The very definition of niche?" This blows me away:

The 78 Project
Music |

Take THAT Focusrite! What's old is new once again!
I love the passion of going back to 78.

However, this is too retro-ey for me (which is saying a lot since I indulge in tubes and tape). The acetate recording for a pure throwback sound of the '20s is not my thing, never was.

That was the problem with 78s for the most part was the acetate. 78s on modern microgroove can sound excellent.

There's a company or two specializing in putting out 78 RPM remasters of singles from back in the day.

The only downside of the 78 from a technical standpoint from what I gather is the very high speed makes it hard to have good stability compared to a 45. A 45 with a top end cartridge/tonearm IMO will sound better than a 78.

Maybe not by a ton but probably enough. However, on the lower end stuff the 78 might be better.

Still love having them around and wouldn't mind seeing more. Like the old days, probably best if they just kept them in mono.
Old 4th April 2014
  #67
Old 12th June 2014
  #68
Lives for gear
 
midiquestions's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobro View Post
4) Vinyl imposes formal structure on the music and listening experience. It only runs so long before you flip it over (pause between movements) and not coincidentally the lengths are in keeping with lengths evolved in music over centuries.
Yes, this is also why I like cassettes.
Old 12th June 2014
  #69
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by LP2CD View Post

Something else I wonder about, and that is even more subtle, is the intrinsic difference in rise time between LP and digital sound. In theory, anyway, digital can go from 0000 to 1111 instantly, vinyl, and tape, cannot. I can speculate, but not prove, that the slower rise time of analog media also results in a more "comfortable" sound.
THAT!!!! its the slew rate. its the same thing as in former times happend while the tube / transistor - transition. tubes have a significantly slower rise time than a transistor, so the people always said - and they were right in general - that tubes sound warmer.

to net get into technicalities (that I am the wrong person for) but a slower rise time / bigger slew rate results in 1. added harmonics (saturation/distortion, depends on the values) - most of the times very subtle, but clearly noticeable beyong expectations bias - and 2. in a smoother roll-of in the hi-end.

so it sounds clearly "warmer", "smoother".

I really dont know why there is only one manufacturer of a plugin - out of business since years - who made a plugin that manipulated the slew rate. the effect was astonishing. but the good news is, that you can do that in a way when applying a roll-of to the hi-end at 13.500 Hz, exactly what the vinyl specs say, so that you end up with a "vinyl-ish" sound with out all the garbage and the crap that comes with vinyl.

engineers mixing, producing mastering this squashed, brittly and fizzy noisy top 40 music ... well, they play that game.

in the end its not the question vinyl or digital, the answer to that is "vinyl is crap, get rid of it!" but the question how to work with digital in the right way.

I believe, that in the middle or long run we will come to that, that the highs are turned down and the bs-equation "if its distorted it sounds good on iphones and if its saturated it sound good because it has an analogue-feeling" will be recognised as a big, big failure that we made in the past.

all the trying to get soemthing sounding warm and full and comfortable start working in the wrong place. its the rise-time/slew-rate.
Old 12th June 2014
  #70
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteaxxxe View Post
THAT!!!! its the slew rate. its the same thing as in former times happend while the tube / transistor - transition. tubes have a significantly slower rise time than a transistor, so the people always said - and they were right in general - that tubes sound warmer.
Afaik, this is not correct. Tubes are still widely used in radio frequency applications such as broadcast and radar (in some cases, they are the only option). I simply can't imagine how anything with an audible slew rate can even do any RF at all. Makes absolutely no sense to me. Please provide some references.

It has been beaten to death: Tubes have no sound. They can't even do anything useful on their own. It's all about the idea behind the circuit. Ask yourself why Neve and API can be so popular given the fact they don't use tubes at all. Their sound is SUPER warm and FAT, I can't imagine anything "warmer" to be honest. This is because their circuits are exceptionally clever in the musical sense! You cannot reduce the complexity of electronics to a single part, it's ridiculous.
Old 12th June 2014
  #71
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDrive View Post
2. People who think analog is technically "superior" to digital. These people usually have some gross misconceptions about digital sampling, and say things like "it's just a bunch of samples man" or "ones and zeros, ppssshhh" and "digital can't touch the REAL THING dude". These people are grossly ignorant and don't seem to care. Not cool, I don't get it.


Category #2 people are basically morons. They don't understand how digital sampling works, yet they love to put their ignorance on a pedestal in the hopes of impressing some other ignorant people, and feeling pretty cool about themselves. I really don't care to argue with these people, any more than I'd like to argue with a flat earther or creationist. They're wrong and should learn some science.
I am - by these criteria - a moron.

I have had simultaneous recording and playback of a Studer 2" A827 and Pro Tools HD going for about twelve years now, and analog always sounds better to me.

My understanding of digital technology is never part of the empiricism of listening to recorded music. It is an experience that is - fortunately - without thought.

However much science I may learn, I do not think my sense of this will change.
I did like reading about "slew rate" in this thread. I love tubes and I love tape.
100% analog vinyl of well recorded music has a soundstage and three dimensionality that - in my opinion - can not be recorded or reproduced with digital technology. I understand that there are reams and reams of scientific data that will explain that my experience is not valid.

Be well

- Jack
Old 14th June 2014
  #72
Lives for gear
 
api2500's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by monomaker View Post
Completely agree - the ritual of vinyl is why it's such an important format. I know of no other format that presents the listener with big artwork and then makes them perform a bunch of actions to listen to the music.
It's like the people have have those enormous coffee machines at home and insist on fresh organic beans from la la land made from Unicorn brains. Using the machine is half of the caffeine hit and wake up call. The routine gets them excited about it.

Those people also tend to fall into category #2 in my experience when it comes to vinyl.

I'm going to just go ahead and admit that vinyl isn't all that pleasing to me. I suppose I fall into category #6 who don't really care for it. I was born after the era of vinyl, but I did spend a lot of my early years DJing on vinyl. Usually dance promos, white labels and I have no happy memories wearing out beautiful tracks to a room full of people who didn't care if I was running the needle across my arse.

As to recording from vinyl. I can think of nothing worse personally. It is just my lowly opinion but skipping through tracks on my iPhone and having to listen to 3-4 seconds of different types of crackle, noise before each song and having scratches present at quiet parts of the song. No thanks. Not when I'm listening through regular headphones anyway. Tape on the other hand.
Old 14th June 2014
  #73
mfx
Lives for gear
 
mfx's Avatar
 

Not sure why but I respect my vinyls more than CDs and certainly mp3's.

There's a passion for vinyl and I am confident that a collectable vinyl holds more value than an cd, let alone an mp3.

I guess its the tactility and ownership, as well as the sound and physical interaction.

To me it's almost the conceptual difference with vinyls vs digital, with hardware instruments and outboard vs plugin software.

I guess the nostalgia and collectability of vinyls, for me, plays a part. They are less disposable than an mp3...delete key!

Also, it's interesting that you are more likely to find an album downloadable of the net legally/illegally, than you would fine a vinyl version. Only place I seem to find them is YouTube/discogs.

I love the convenience of mp3, i use both cd and mp3 in the car and on the phone, but I still buy vinyls and enjoy listening to them on the decks. Then again I have another agenda and enjoy mixing vinyl on the technics...Im just old
Old 14th June 2014
  #74
Here for the gear
 
LP2CD's Avatar
 

De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum!

What is apparent, and it almost goes without saying, is that there is a lot of very subjective and very nearly religious personal taste involved in the Analog vs. Digital debate. Personally, my view is that there HAS to be a substantial amount of, subtle perhaps, modification and EQ that results from the production and playback of an LP or a tape. HOWEVER, such mods are not well characterized. If they were they undoubtedly could be emulated and applied in the digital realm such that DAC playback would be sonically indistinguishable from analog reproduction.

But certainly there are those who will not accept the fact that well executed bandwidth limited digital recording and playback is in fact intrinsically far superior to analog. It becomes a matter of personal vision and identity and facts, themselves, in this context become unpersuasive. Recently, The New Yorker magazine (not a pro sound journal, I know...) published an article to this point: Why Do People Persist in Believing Things That Just Aren't True? : The New Yorker The article itself concerns how it is nearly impossible to disabuse anti-vaxers and unpasteurized milk advocates et al. with facts, or anything else for that matter. Now while Analog vs. Digital is hardly life-and-death, there are many of the same human propensities involved. But since our debate doesn't involve mortal peril, and certainly analog done well can sound spectacularly good and digital done poorly not so much, my bottom line is "whatever floats yer boat!"
Old 16th June 2014
  #76
Quote:
Originally Posted by LP2CD View Post
If they were they undoubtedly could be emulated and applied in the digital realm such that DAC playback would be sonically indistinguishable from analog reproduction.
Why? It would be pointless to reduce the standard of modern engineering just for a few religiously driven amateurs? These people regularly fail at explaining what exactly goes wrong with digital (but use the wonderfuly cheap, fast, 100% reliable and lossless technology to communicate their misconceptions!), it's no wonder seasoned ppl start giggling (at best).

Stop talking about emulation. Digital technology is a real thing. In 2014, it's really about time to accept this obvious fact.

Maybe all you need is a holiday trip to North Korea? They're still in the golden 60's. North Koreans have that great 3D sound, that's sure. Cuba is another alternative, but it probably won't last that long


@ LP2CD: I realized that I slightly misquoted your post. Please don't feel addressed or offended.
Old 16th June 2014
  #77
Lives for gear
 
sat159p1's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
It has been beaten to death: Tubes have no sound. They can't even do anything useful on their own. It's all about the idea behind the circuit.
Are you joking?

Tubes have no sound? Change the company. Change JJ's for Mullards. Still the same sound? They can't do anything useful on their own? What about gain and distortion? MAn, this is sick statement.
Old 16th June 2014
  #78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sat159p1 View Post
Are you joking?

Tubes have no sound? Change the company. Change JJ's for Mullards. Still the same sound? They can't do anything useful on their own? What about gain and distortion? MAn, this is sick statement.
Is this a xylophone kind of thing?

Afaik, one still needs a power supply, additional inductors, resistors, transformers and a very good idea to give a tube a reasonable meaning. I don't deny that tubes have huge production tolerances and thus modify the circuit's original specification in some way. But that wasn't my point. You still need a circuit, and this is what REALLY produces a sound. The only sound I can get out of a tube alone is a cling/bling. What are you doing with tubes?

I am serious with this, this is not a joke. It's all about the circuit. But ppl prefer hearing about brute generalization and irrational romanticism.
Old 16th June 2014
  #79
Lives for gear
 
midiquestions's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
Why? It would be pointless to reduce the standard of modern engineering just for a few religiously driven amateurs? These people regularly fail at explaining what exactly goes wrong with digital (but use the wonderfuly cheap, fast, 100% reliable and lossless technology to communicate their misconceptions!), it's no wonder seasoned ppl start giggling (at best).
In what way or ways are audiophile technology and text-based message board communication comparable?
Old 16th June 2014
  #80
Quote:
Originally Posted by midiquestions View Post
In what way or ways are audiophile technology and text-based message board communication comparable?
They both carry information. They both depend on storage and I/O fidelity. Both are mediums. They have plenty things in common. What is the meaning of "audiophile" in the age of perfect lossless information storage and transport anyway? Nowadays, the meaning of an audiophile medium can be reduced to a boring, fool proof CRC check.
Old 16th June 2014
  #81
Lives for gear
 
midiquestions's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
They both carry information. They both depend on storage and I/O fidelity. Both are mediums. They have plenty things in common. What is the meaning of "audiophile" in the age of perfect lossless information storage and transport anyway? Nowadays, the meaning of an audiophile medium can be reduced to a boring, fool proof CRC check.
Point being, why criticize someone's artistic preferences based on the fact that they're using the Internet? They have nothing to do with each other.

Also, the "move to Cuba" stuff makes you sound like a knee-jerk wingnut.
Old 16th June 2014
  #82
Gear Nut
 
Rob Lo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
Why? It would be pointless to reduce the standard of modern engineering just for a few religiously driven amateurs? These people regularly fail at explaining what exactly goes wrong with digital (but use the wonderfuly cheap, fast, 100% reliable and lossless technology to communicate their misconceptions!), it's no wonder seasoned ppl start giggling (at best).
That is the irony of it.

I don't think it's about what goes wrong with digital...it's about what DOESN'T go wrong.

Digital technology has afforded the everyday clown-off-the-street, like myself, the luxury to cut pristine tracks out of the bedroom. So some grapple with the idea that people would want to put the crap BACK into the music when their counterparts of decades past were going through painstaking measure to take it out.

it's a weird parallel to the human condition I guess...

I like a lo-fi aesthetic, totally anathema to what is the standard of today...I'm sure with a very strong foundation and "know how" I could replicate these effects from the old recordings because I'm sure technique is half the battle. But for now? I get pleasant results from running things through valves, old cheap gear, betamax and all other pieces of junk.

I can't tell what is really going on...but something is happening.
Old 17th June 2014
  #83
Quote:
Originally Posted by midiquestions View Post
Point being, why criticize someone's artistic preferences based on the fact that they're using the Internet? They have nothing to do with each other.
I don't. Not sure how you came to that notion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Lo
I like a lo-fi aesthetic, totally anathema to what is the standard of today...I'm sure with a very strong foundation and "know how" I could replicate these effects from the old recordings because I'm sure technique is half the battle. But for now? I get pleasant results from running things through valves, old cheap gear, betamax and all other pieces of junk.

I can't tell what is really going on...but something is happening.
Nice points.

No question. I do the same.

However, in 2014, such effects are best added via insert (itb or not doesn't matter), don't you agree? What's the benefit in making the whole infrastructure sound analogue* without any exception (as LP2CD proposed)?

*Whatever this means, it can only relate to signal deterioration.
Old 17th June 2014
  #84
Here for the gear
 

As somebody who, like LP2CD, spends a lot of time on transferring vinyl to digital for both personal and professional purposes, I'm actually often surprised by how similar the two can sound. Very often, most differences can be ascribed to either mastering choices or to playback equipment. There's often more care taken in mastering to vinyl, and the equipment that most people have for listening to records, especially the cartridges, usually gives a mid-range boost that's very pleasing and very "analog." But if you use analog equipment, as I do, that doesn't inflate the mids, the sound can start feeling almost digital, or at least what we're used to calling digital.

Two examples. First, I just did a comparison of the CD reissue by Captured Tracks of the first couple of 12"s and LPs by the New Zealand band The Bats. I'd had a few friends mention that they thought the CDs just didn't sound as good. But with barely any work (noise reduction, gain lift), they were 99% identical, with the only difference being about a +db or two shelf on the high end with the cd version, which is a pretty common mastering practice, of course. It was maybe having the effect of making things a touch too jangly for some ears. Maybe you could ascribe this to remastering mid-80s material for (or by) 40-year-old ears that have lost some high end ability... But the point is that this is purely in the realm of a mastering choice, not a format imposition. Though, of course, I was doing the listening through a digital system (Metric Halo to Focal).

The other is that back when I was setting my equipment up I was always searching for a way to test its accuracy. One method I used was to transfer an LP by the early-80s Boston band The Neats. The interesting thing about this record from a mastering point of view is that it was done by Ted Jensen early on (Rick at Ace of Hearts always believed in paying for quality). And then, a couple of years ago, and although his hourly rate must be vastly more than back then, Ted Jensen handled the CD reissue. All I had to do to match the CD from the 30-year-old vinyl was to hit the gain to bring the vinyl to the same RMS. Which would seem to indicate that he'd done it right the first time and didn't have to tinker. Or that he has a consistent set of ears. Or, I suppose, that he was also remastering from vinyl, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case.

So, while there can be noise-floor issues, or inner groove issues, and a few others, I'm generally impressed by how close the two formats can sound if some of the playback and mastering variables are eliminated, or at least reduced.
Old 18th December 2016
  #85
Gear Head
 

I'm actually a vinyl collector. In some way you could think i'm a #2 or maybe a #3 . There is one time you could think i was a #1 .


But in reality i'm not in those category. Before i was a vinyl collector, i was #1 and #2 if you want, i wanted some vinyl records, first become i remembered when i was a child and i was thinking the sound was better. Most of all elders in the style i'm enjoying were saying to me to listen vinyl records because the sound i'm enjoying needs to be enjoyed on vinyl records.


I'm a huge and obsessive reggae fan. I mean jamaican sounds from 60s to 80s (even 90s in some way).
This music is a very specific one, its colour, its dynamic all caracteristics are very atypical. Reggae was an engineer music. This music made the engineer become artist themselves (don't forget to put your b side and listen tubby's dub... on some records the b side is sometimes more important than the vocal side ahah.).
When we consider vinyl sounds largely better, we are not considering vinyl is technically superior to digital and we don't care about the bits (zero and one). But we're listenning to this atypical sound, and we are fascinated by its colour, warm and dynamic.
This music MUST be listenned with this format. the original jamaican pressing are simply the BEST to enjoy this music. And more generally in the music industry it was a very creative and amazing part that is totally under rated. More generally the influence of reggae music on modern music is almost unknown and totally under rated. To finnish on that point, jamaican pressing are usually considered as "bad" or let's say irregular pressing. In fact they're not. Allright the possibility to have some noise on pressing that are still mint is real, but not so huge. Records in wonderful condition sounds amazing. Jamaican knew how to make sounds believe me. Noise pressing were much more noticeable during the 90s and their repress were not very good (rip from ancient records sometimes dirty and pressed with dirty wax... correct to awful.). British (& us) pressings are nice too, but they were recorded, mixed etc in jamaica, but then cutted and pressed in UK so thats a very good compromise, especially in the 80s with the maxi 12" domination. But then a jamaican 7" will always have a particular sound that none music did. Oh of course if you compare to western pop/rock pressing, you could consider, we can find more noise, even light, we find some noise; you could consider that sometimes the mix or the master was not so balanced on spectral frequencies, or too much dynamic with very proeminent drums during the early 80s dancehall era etc. Sometimes there's even some errors in the mix or o nthe master, you could be very shocked for sure.... but in fact it's an atypical and original style, and i challenge you to come talk about jamaican engineers, and so about the vinyl as it was the format the music was designed for.

Now i will talk about another aspect, those vintage sounds coming on the digital era (CD remastering, repress etc). Cd remastering (mainly 90s works) were nice and when you started with this you enjoyed the atypical sound of reggae music. but then one day you finally bought your first vinyl record and you instantly understood, that the result was not the same. More dynamic, more colour etc.
today there is a hype in the reggae community, mostly on vinyl format. But jamaican records are very rare, they were pressing for the jamaican market only (or UK market a bit... they always tried to press for US marlet, but US never looked their music, so they failed to integrate the US market). So actually lots of ask for some obscure tunes, considered as totally killers but clearly very very rare (we are talking about hundreds of pressing only. some records have been pressed with only 100 copies back in the days. When you have thousand guys who want this records, when in those 100 copies much of them are bad condition etc, the price turn crazy. nobody knows but actually reggae music is one of the most expensive style; like the northern soul, maybe even more on some vintage rare ska). so some people decided to repress. That's all simple they were thinking let's make a rip from a vinyl and repress it. It's actually in more or less good or bad condition. Honnestly, it will never reach the original quality. Usually the better repress are those which have been processed the less. Those which are remastered, damn this his horrible, loosing all dynamics due to heavy comp/limiting, strange EQ, loosing some colour, getting distorsion or strange things, due to bad condition it was done or due to denoiser or this or that.
About this point, i'm totally extrem and i assume it for some reasons. Repress should be avoided, simply. It's a fake, and even the less processed, with the better fidelity cant reach the real sound. Honnestly passing this sensitive colourful sound from A to D to return to A is ... damn no words that is polite ^^

If we go more far; still about the rarity. It could ask many years, sometime five to ten years to find a record. Because it's really rare. So you have not a little idea the adventure that it is to find it and receive a package directly from jamaica. you have not a little idea the sensation it provokes to finally put it on your truntable and play for the first time. You are not enough open-minded and curious to understand the mystical connexion you have with a record. When this record is living its own adventure since 40 years or more, went from some hands to another, and when finally its destiny was to rejoin you by some strange ways all around the world. Only jah knows.

I could explain more facts, but just to show some points. I talked about reggae music but i think it could be easily the same for some other vintage music, maybe not extrem as with reggae.
Let's take another extrem example: what will you say to a 78RPM collector? That digital is better... It's just non-sense..
And why do you think vinyl is the that the price increase within time? Because we are just hypster? It was already the same before, so this argue is not true. Do you think one day people will spend 2.000 bucks for a .wav from our days? I don't think so. Try to understand why... You will realise a digital could be copied infinitly; but then a vinyl have been pressed in a limited amount, sometimes very limited. You will understand that the sound, the cover and everything is a piece of history, representing, condensing the feeling of an era. It's a time machine!!!

I do consider there is a real hype actually with vinyl format. I'm not one of them, i started buying records when everyone were discovering MP3 (and when actually i abandonned this format for real quality, even if napster was a funny adventure), so i'm out of all hype.
I really think this hype is good. Actually i think the vinyl hype is over rated. Do you see so much people with vinyl record at home? Not really. Some people do this because wow it's so cool, or because they simply think it's better. Actually between a MP3 and a vinyl, there is no doubt about which is the best. Those people who want to search more about audio quality, who want to respect the thing and finally re-buy music; it's all fine. Why do we have to consider them as idiot? Because they don't have specific scientific knowledge? And if they think vinyl is technically superior to digital, and if they consider themselves and show themsleves to others as "soooo coool" because they have records at home. Let them do.

An usb turntable is an heresy for me, but hey i won't judge anyone. If it suits well for other people needs, good for them. In anyway i will always support people who want enjoy the vinyl format. In the 20th century, people were buying lots of music, the MP3 fascination in early 2000's has been a little crash for music industry. Especially for little label. Underground label were doing some amazing work during the 90s. Not it's much more difficult for them, it's even more complicated for big major. Buying digital format, allright why not. I will never do that honnestly, but still people don't buy destroyed format but lossless, i find coherency considering their needs. I have more doubt about paying for mp3 and other destrutive format, but then if they are happy like that. In anyway buying music is something to support.
since a while the music industry count more on live/concert to make money and honnestly i'm not amazed. Live/concert everytime everywhere, less feeling, crazy insane ticket prices etc. but then lots of people say they are agree to pay a lot to enjoy a little moment enjoying directly their favourite artist.. Good for them. I prefer pay that amount or even less (sometimes more, even much much more) for a special connexion with an artist with his records. I will build a serious relation with the track, with the artist and so on for a long time. Better invest imho :D ...

I'm not in any of those category you hardly claim, as many other people that's for sure. Your need to put people in some case and judge them in quite funny and finally design a not comfortable case just for yourself.


The real question here should be: why are you so upset and angry about people who enjoy their records. Let them do, it's good for them, it's good for music industry.
"do we have to...?" do what you want and let other people do what they want.

Do we have to judge ?? i think no
Old 18th December 2016
  #86
Lives for gear
 

If you want cds to be ever good as vinyl we need to turn back the clock to 1982 when cd delivery had dynamic range. The record companies around 2003 swapped out all of their cds and discontinued others out of current print for less dynamic range. People stated to hate CDs more and more. I actually spent the time asking and launching public opinion polls about this and I found out that CDs sales dropped because they did not offer a better fedelity than the track on the itunes store. So by them super limiting the signal, they cause the demise of the CD.

That is why vinyl sales are steadily climbing. Also, they can't use that badly mastered track they stuck on the CD to cut a record.
Old 26th December 2016
  #87
Gear Maniac
 
Dina Mastering's Avatar
 

Everybody listen to the format they want, and there's no other reason needed than practicality and personal preference, based on whatever. I would say mp3, possibly whatever bitrate and maybe even crappy playback system like cellphone speaker, might be the norm. If it works for them, whats wrong with that? I cant stand cell spk, but a lot of people doesnt mind and thats ok. I have some flacs, but mostly 320 mp3 for leisire listening. When I got a decent mp3 player, as Im not a physical format fetishist, I sold or mostly gave away and even threw off a bunch of CDs to the plastic recycle bin (I mean for the boxes, and just in case, dunno if the box or cd is actually recyclable, but guess cd format was a big dirty source of thrash and pollution to the planet. most def, mp3 is way greener.)

But I get the attraction of phisically owning a recording, specially vinyls, with their big cover art and coolnes/vintage factor. I like vinyl covers on the walls. If anybody likes the particular sound of a format, thats ok. If anybody wants to feel superior because of their format choice, specially when its based on external theories, opinions or myths, and not their own, criteria... well, i guess human kind has way more stupid things to polishbefor to consider this anything important, hehe.
Old 27th December 2016
  #88
Gear Head
 
Danzemusic's Avatar
 

I think ppl can say whatever they want about how vinyl/tape/analogue is better (or better sounding) than digital, but the one factor that always stays true is that one could easily turn a pure digital recording into an analogue recording (re-mastering with analogue equipment etc), but one can never be able to make an analogue recording to sounding digital; so in my opinion, digital format has to be technically more superior.
Old 27th December 2016
  #89
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzemusic View Post
I think ppl can say whatever they want about how vinyl/tape/analogue is better (or better sounding) than digital, but the one factor that always stays true is that one could easily turn a pure digital recording into an analogue recording (re-mastering with analogue equipment etc), but one can never be able to make an analogue recording to sounding digital; so in my opinion, digital format has to be technically more superior.
Those new digital microphones from Behringer are amazing...
Old 27th December 2016
  #90
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioaddict View Post

Look at manual transmissions in cars now. They've finally come up with semi-automatic non torque converter transmissions that outperform stickshifts to an extent that they are obsolete from a performance standpoint.

And yet, there's still a small diehard contingency that is frustrated with this and still desiring 3 pedals for the rest of their lives. The driving experience at anything less than race track conditions IMO is still more enjoyable with stickshifts.

Stickshifts have slowly been eliminated from exotics due to money concerns -- if you can't make enough of them it starts to be a money losing proposition to offer them. Analog releases do not tend to be the same way, and I'd imagine if they did, they too would be extinct.
I'm a part of that contingency.

Actually, I'm beginning to believe that having an automobile with a manual transmission is the most effective anti-theft device that can be had. Nobody coming up these days knows how to drive the damned things.

Last edited by johnny nowhere; 27th December 2016 at 06:05 PM.. Reason: Nip and tuck.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump