Ok, I admit it, analog still sounds better than digital

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #20 on:** 20 May 2009, 03:18 pm »

royphil..... +1,000,000 on the above.

John

doug s. · « **Reply #21 on:** 20 May 2009, 04:49 pm »

roy, like john/tcg, i agree w/everything you say. except this:

"They could only fit so much on a disc back then."

the industry could have gone to 24/176.4 or 24/192 back then, if it wanted to. it didn't want to - it thought 16/44.1 was good enough, and didn't wanna spend the extra money for the hardware needed for the higher resolution... like the reduction in cost to mfr cd vs lp, and the higher marketing price of cd's vs lp's wasn't enough for them.

oh well,

doug s.

mcullinan · « **Reply #22 on:** 20 May 2009, 06:32 pm »

You know Ive listened to records and they sound good, but I wouldnt pick it over digital. The music I listen to is all on hard drives and magically wified to me from beyond. I still by CDs, but would rather just buy ALAC or FLAC and get it done with. I can burp, fart, burn a hole in my couch (of course I do NONe of that) and listen to any album I desire, without moving! And Id say my systems sound is up there with the best of them... like everyone else would say about their system hehe.
So if you like records, cool, if not thats cool too.
Mike

Quiet Earth · « **Reply #23 on:** 20 May 2009, 11:02 pm »

Is it against the rules to like both formats equally?

I think each has its strengths and weaknesses. A lot of my vinyl sounds terrible but most of my CDs are very good to fantastic. Then again, some of my vinyl records makes time stand still for a while . . . . . oh, the inconsistency!

If I was forced to choose one format over the other I would just have to flip a coin and hope it lands on its edge.

BTW, wasn't the CD originally intended to replace the pre-recorded cassette? I thought the record companies had no intention of eliminating vinyl but it just turned out that way. Anyone remember?

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #24 on:** 21 May 2009, 12:24 am »

Quote from: Quiet Earth on 20 May 2009, 11:02 pm

Is it against the rules to like both formats equally?

BTW, wasn't the CD originally intended to replace the pre-recorded cassette? I thought the record companies had no intention of eliminating vinyl but it just turned out that way. Anyone remember?

No rules against it....use, abuse or listen to you hearts content either format if you're happy

John

doug s. · « **Reply #25 on:** 21 May 2009, 02:42 am »

Quote from: Quiet Earth on 20 May 2009, 11:02 pm

...BTW, wasn't the CD originally intended to replace the pre-recorded cassette? I thought the record companies had no intention of eliminating vinyl but it just turned out that way. Anyone remember?

nope, cd was specifically to replace lp. the idea of costing pennies per disc instead of dollars, and being able to charge 50% more and then some, had the record industry salivating big time...

doug s.

Quiet Earth · « **Reply #26 on:** 21 May 2009, 04:18 am »

Thanks for that little piece of audio history Doug.

I couldn't remember.

orthobiz · « **Reply #27 on:** 22 May 2009, 12:33 am »

So much of the actual comparison depends upon the source material. So, if you are listening to the original vinyl or the remastered vinyl or the original CD release or the remaster, there will be tons of differences for a given recording.

For me, being able to listen to American Beauty (right now) or Heart Like A Wheel (yesterday) or Sweet Baby James (two days ago) on vinyl means so much to me. First, I already own it. Second, it sounds awesome. And third, people will argue to the death about how the record (typically) reflects the way it was supposed to sound. All the other releases have bits of compression, changes in dynamics, alterations in frequency cuts and boosts, etc. etc. Just go to stevehoffman.tv and enter the fray if you dare.

Also, just for me, it's gotten to the point where I almost can't hear pops and ticks. I listened to a wonderfully dynamic two-eye Columbia 360 sound pressing of the first Blood Sweat & Tears album and...it's awesome! I feel like I'm running through a rainstorm but I am high and dry because I can dance between the raindrops.

Vinyl roooooools.

Paul

Quiet Earth · « **Reply #28 on:** 22 May 2009, 01:53 am »

Quote from: orthobiz on 22 May 2009, 12:33 am

....... dance between the raindrops.

B e a u t i f u l

BobM · « **Reply #29 on:** 22 May 2009, 12:28 pm »

I'm Singing in the Rain!

BobRex · « **Reply #30 on:** 22 May 2009, 02:47 pm »

Quote from: doug s. on 21 May 2009, 02:42 am

Quote from: Quiet Earth on 20 May 2009, 11:02 pm
...BTW, wasn't the CD originally intended to replace the pre-recorded cassette? I thought the record companies had no intention of eliminating vinyl but it just turned out that way. Anyone remember?
nope, cd was specifically to replace lp. the idea of costing pennies per disc instead of dollars, and being able to charge 50% more and then some, had the record industry salivating big time...

doug s.

That's not the way I remember it.... From what I remember, cassettes were outselling lps and were the dominant form of recorded music. The CD was initially a direct replacement for the cassettes, but the press pushed the idea of replacing lps. I was selling hi-fi at the time and that's what the companies were telling us.

John Atkinson has gone on record with this explanation a number of times.

Quiet Earth · « **Reply #31 on:** 22 May 2009, 04:35 pm »

Quote from: BobRex on 22 May 2009, 02:47 pm

The CD was initially a direct replacement for the cassettes, but the press pushed the idea of replacing lps.

That's what I remember too Bob, but it's been a while and the ol' brain cells aren't what they used to be.

Wayner · « **Reply #32 on:** 22 May 2009, 05:04 pm »

I think you all are right, in a new twist, CDs were a marketing assault on anything in the analog domain, regardless of its analog format (LP, Cassette, reel-to-reel). The RIAA even invented a code to push us all along, remember the AAD, ADD and then inventually the DDD codes? Not only was analog bad, it had a mixed bag of cousins that may be almost equally bad, unless int was totally recorded and mixed in the digital domain. This way, they could release something in the AAD domain, knowing damn well, later on they could release it in a "better" domain, such as ADD or DDD. Now we have those days behind us and they are still coming out with so-called bigger bit versions of the same old thing.

My friends, I think we have all been slightly dooped. Remember when CDs first came out, they really didn't say they were the superior audio format, they appologied for having an analog master. They also said the compact disc was "convienent". That it is, until the downloads came along.

Wayner

orthobiz · « **Reply #33 on:** 23 May 2009, 02:38 am »

Quote from: Wayner on 22 May 2009, 05:04 pm

My friends, I think we have all been slightly dooped. Remember when CDs first came out, they really didn't say they were the superior audio format, they appologied for having an analog master.

Wayner

Yup. Something about the CD being so accurate that it would reveal flaws in the source. Like a warning for the sucky sound. Yeah, right!

Paul

doug s. · « **Reply #34 on:** 23 May 2009, 02:44 am »

"perfect sound forever" that's what i remember.

doug s.

BobRex · « **Reply #35 on:** 23 May 2009, 09:18 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 22 May 2009, 05:04 pm

My friends, I think we have all been slightly dooped. Remember when CDs first came out, they really didn't say they were the superior audio format, they appologied for having an analog master. They also said the compact disc was "convienent". That it is, until the downloads came along.

Wayner

They actually went further than apologizing for the master, on newly recorded works that also apologized for "analog recording techniques". Basically this boiled down to the problem of recording high freqs. If you used the traditional mics or mic positions (esp. classical music) you would overload digital in the high frequencies. Have you ever noticed that most popular music recorded since digital tends to limit cymbals and other high freq. transient instruments? Although it's changed a little in the past few years, early digital couldn't handle the cymbal crashes.

Wayner · « **Reply #36 on:** 23 May 2009, 10:59 pm »

That is true. I've made some live recordings with my Tascam DAT (DA-30 MK II) and while it can make some fine recordings, redlining this machine makes for some very nasty effects. You simply can't redline a digital recording. My ReVox, on the other hand, can take an easy redline up to 3 or 4 db (depending on what I'm recording) and make the distortion very soft, if not un-noticeable.

Wayner

Quiet Earth · « **Reply #37 on:** 23 May 2009, 11:44 pm »

Good points guys! You cannot redline the A/D converter, no matter what the frequency or time domain is (i.e., not just in the treble range and not even for a microsecond). Analog tape compression on the other hand, can be a beautiful thing if done right. This really left the digital recordist in search of a whole new bag of tricks if all he was armed with was his A/D converter.

It's still a problem for the amateur recordist!

The rest of that funny stuff was just marketing hype as you all pointed out so very well. Speaking of marketing, I recently picked up an old Dean Martin Lp on the tower label titled The Lush Years. On the back it says, "This monophonic microgroove recording is playable on monophonic and stereophonic phonographs. It cannot become obsolete. It will continue to be a source of outstanding sound reproduction, providing the finest monophonic performance from any phonograph." Well, I played that record, so many many years after it was made, and not only was it a fine monophonic performance, but it was one of the most enjoyable performances period. Now that was marketing with integrity!

Quiet Earth · « **Reply #38 on:** 23 May 2009, 11:47 pm »

Dean Martin..........

Lush Years.........

I finally get it!