New topic
PrintableMindflux said: Dewrede said: ok , it is
i did a course sound engineering and my teacher confirmed what i posted  Rubbish! Your teacher is misguided and I doubt your sound engineering credentials - firstly, because of the answer you put and, secondly, because rather than displaying your own knowledge on the subject, you rooted around on Google and provided someone else's answer - an answer that justifies your own opinion. Just because this answer appeared on another thread does not make it true - and it isn't true! Yes, there are a finite number of samples, but the reason this number was picked (44,100 per second) is because it is more than adequate for vitrually any sound recording . So, whilst the sampling rate information is true, its impact on what is heard is not. You have also only selected this answer, when there are many to choose from on the thread and the its funny how the others also have arguments for the benefits of cd. So, you copied someone else and you were very selective in what you chose. I find it incredible how people are so ready to accept the first thing they read and take it as the truth - you should research your subject, if you have any interest in it, instead of regurgitating something you read somewhere. It has already been said that this is subjective and if people prefer the sound of vinyl, then that is down to them. And there are so many things that affect the sound you hear (how it was recorded, mixed, converted, the equipment you play it on, where you play it etc) - but again, as said before, if you compare like-for-like, cd will outperform vinyl to the average listener. Its only once you start spending thousands of your hard earned that the differences diminish - but most people don't spend that sort of money on hi-fi. However, and it is scientifically proven - the sound you hear on vinly IS coloured and distorted, whereas digital faithfully reproduces the intended sound. If this is not true, then why have the major (and minor) studios upgraded to digital? Bollocks When they made that decision it was believed the human ear couldnt hear beyond 20000 Hzthat which is crap
Besides Do you honestly think someone teaching sound engineering doesn't know what he's talking about ?  [Edited 9/27/07 13:26pm] | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
|
Dewrede said: Mindflux said: Rubbish! Your teacher is misguided and I doubt your sound engineering credentials - firstly, because of the answer you put and, secondly, because rather than displaying your own knowledge on the subject, you rooted around on Google and provided someone else's answer - an answer that justifies your own opinion. Just because this answer appeared on another thread does not make it true - and it isn't true! Yes, there are a finite number of samples, but the reason this number was picked (44,100 per second) is because it is more than adequate for vitrually any sound recording . So, whilst the sampling rate information is true, its impact on what is heard is not. You have also only selected this answer, when there are many to choose from on the thread and the its funny how the others also have arguments for the benefits of cd. So, you copied someone else and you were very selective in what you chose. I find it incredible how people are so ready to accept the first thing they read and take it as the truth - you should research your subject, if you have any interest in it, instead of regurgitating something you read somewhere. It has already been said that this is subjective and if people prefer the sound of vinyl, then that is down to them. And there are so many things that affect the sound you hear (how it was recorded, mixed, converted, the equipment you play it on, where you play it etc) - but again, as said before, if you compare like-for-like, cd will outperform vinyl to the average listener. Its only once you start spending thousands of your hard earned that the differences diminish - but most people don't spend that sort of money on hi-fi. However, and it is scientifically proven - the sound you hear on vinly IS coloured and distorted, whereas digital faithfully reproduces the intended sound. If this is not true, then why have the major (and minor) studios upgraded to digital? Bollocks When they made that decision it was believed the human ear couldnt hear beyond that which is crap
You need to read before you come up with nonsense like this Besides Do you honestly think someone teaching sound engineering doesn't know what he's talking about ?
[Edited 9/27/07 12:33pm] there are a lot of people teaching that don't know what they are talking about! there's that old stereotype about some college professors who teach creative things as people that weren't good enough to do it... teach it. My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Mindflux said: Blimey, there's a fair amount of rubbish being thrown out about the differences between cd and vinly here!
For a start, the "warmth" of vinyl is actually produced due to "rumble" - this is the resultant sound of a metal stylus being dragged across plastic. It shouldn't actually be there and colours the sound. A cd doesn't suffer from this problem (as its light, not actual physical contact) and, therefore, the only sound you here is what should be there (there are other things that colour the sound, but let's keep this short.) CDs do not have their low or top ends cut and, in fact, have a greater dynamic and frequency range than vinyl. Most people have speakers able to cope with this particular range (erm, where on earth have you heard of speakers going up to 70Khz??!!! Please tell me which model does that!) and, seeing as the human ear can only detect sounds within the range of 20Hz to 20000Hz anything outside of that just adds "theoretical ambience". For example, in my audiophile hi-fi setup, my speakers are designed to go to 30000Hz - you can't hear it, but it apparently gives the illusion of greater headroom at the top end - so there is an airiness about the treble. It does seem to work, as the top end is detailed and sweet, but as a human cannot physically hear this extra 10000Hz of information, its a difficult point to prove. The only FACT is that its a subjective experience - some will prefer the sound of vinyl, others will prefer digital. And, £ for £, (until you start spending in excess of £5/6000 on a turntable) a cd player will outperform a turntable without any problem. [Edited 9/26/07 11:34am] and this is where you're wrong [Edited 9/27/07 13:08pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ufoclub said: Dewrede said: Bollocks When they made that decision it was believed the human ear couldnt hear beyond that which is crap
You need to read before you come up with nonsense like this Besides Do you honestly think someone teaching sound engineering doesn't know what he's talking about ?
[Edited 9/27/07 12:33pm] there are a lot of people teaching that don't know what they are talking about! there's that old stereotype about some college professors who teach creative things as people that weren't good enough to do it... teach it. true but it doesn't apply in this case imo | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
vainandy said: On the old albums that were originally on vinyl, the vinyl sounds much better than the CDs. The sound on the vinyl seems to be much clearer and powerful. The drums and bass seem to beat and vibrate harder. On the CDs, they sound like they were recorded from cassette tapes with the Dolby feature turned on, which makes the music sound blander. The CDs kind of sound like a stereo with the treble turned down.
for once andy i agree with you wholeheartedly 
it was the bass and the drums of the Black Album (Vinyl) that inspired this post...again, i never heard the Black Album like that before...aside from the back story, and Prince being Prince, it was like i finally understood why that album is held in such regard. i mean really...what is the Black Album with weak bass an percussion?!?!?!?....(*calms down*)...it was moving to say the least.. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Mindflux said: Blimey, there's a fair amount of rubbish being thrown out about the differences between cd and vinly here!
For a start, the "warmth" of vinyl is actually produced due to "rumble" - this is the resultant sound of a metal stylus being dragged across plastic. It shouldn't actually be there and colours the sound. A cd doesn't suffer from this problem (as its light, not actual physical contact) and, therefore, the only sound you here is what should be there (there are other things that colour the sound, but let's keep this short.) CDs do not have their low or top ends cut and, in fact, have a greater dynamic and frequency range than vinyl. Most people have speakers able to cope with this particular range (erm, where on earth have you heard of speakers going up to 70Khz??!!! Please tell me which model does that!) and, seeing as the human ear can only detect sounds within the range of 20Hz to 20000Hz anything outside of that just adds "theoretical ambience". For example, in my audiophile hi-fi setup, my speakers are designed to go to 30000Hz - you can't hear it, but it apparently gives the illusion of greater headroom at the top end - so there is an airiness about the treble. It does seem to work, as the top end is detailed and sweet, but as a human cannot physically hear this extra 10000Hz of information, its a difficult point to prove. The only FACT is that its a subjective experience - some will prefer the sound of vinyl, others will prefer digital. And, £ for £, (until you start spending in excess of £5/6000 on a turntable) a cd player will outperform a turntable without any problem. [Edited 9/26/07 11:34am] so you don't even trust your own judgement and rather rely on 'scientific 'crap ?  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
FuNkeNsteiN said: Dewrede said: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=375592
The key to this question is the difference between a digital and an analog recording. Natural sound is by definition analog. When a CD recording is created, this analog is sound is digitized. To do this, they take a lot of snapshots of the analog sound. For a CD recording they take 44,100 snapshots in a minute. These snapshots are then converted to digital information with a certain precision. For a CD recording this precision is 16 bits which means that every one of the 44,100 snapshots needs to be converted into one of the 65,536 (2^16) possible values. You can probably see where I am going: by definition a digital recording doesn't include all the sound information. You could visualize a CD recording as a really large chest with a lot of drawers. Because the number of snapshots that are taken are not infinite (the maximum is 44,100 per minute), the process of taking snapshots results in the loss of information. Information is further lost because each of these snapshots must be made to fit in one of the 65,536 drawers of the chest. A record player which plays LP’s is strictly analog. A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. The record player than transforms this groove to an analogue sound signal which can be fed into an amplifier. In this process, no information can be lost. No snapshots need to be taken and the sound doesn't need be converted to one of the possible 65,536 values. There basically is an infinite number of 'snapshots' and 'possible values'. Therefore vinyl recording sound richer than CD recordings (as long as you have a decent vinyl record player). Be aware that recent DVD Audio players and Super Audio CD players come closer to vinyl recordings as they have a much larger number of possible snapshots in one minute (up to 192,000) and because these snapshots can be converted to a larger number of possible values (up to 16,777,216 possible values, or 24 bit). 
Ah, nicely explained 
I didn't write this But i heard this on more than 1 occasion Some still don't believe it though  [Edited 9/27/07 13:36pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I read on BBC News today that some producers are mastering tracks specifically to be listened to on mp3 players!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/h...004174.stm It's very intriguing. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Dewrede said: FuNkeNsteiN said: Ah, nicely explained
I didn't write this But i heard this on more than 1 occasion Some still don't believe it though
[Edited 9/27/07 13:36pm] why isn't the above article discussing the limitations of vinyl reproduction due to the physical medium, the needle, the rumble, the limited range because sharp bass actually will cause the needle to skip... seriously look it up. PS I own a large vinyl collection, but I still understand that digital recordings can sound better. On the other hand, old Prince cd's do not sound as good as the records, that is agreed. But that is because of the analogue EQ of the master tape used. Of course DVD audio or superaudioCD is WAY, WAY better than records can ever sound, that is easily heard by your own ears! My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
I really want someone to do a audiophile vinyl transfer of the Black Album to CD. That would sound GREAT! My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dewrede said: FuNkeNsteiN said: Ah, nicely explained
I didn't write this But i heard this on more than 1 occasion Some still don't believe it though
[Edited 9/27/07 13:36pm] I don't disagree on the difference between digital's byte samples vs the smoothness of analog. That's pretty much fact. I just don't agree that analog is basically infinite ("no information can be lost") in the accuracy of its reproduction of sound. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
I have said this all a long and well done for bringin it up - Listen to albums like For You and Prince on vinyl and you can feel the intimacy of his one man band, and my copy of SOTT is now in two platic covers lol - I never ditched my deck and now I see HMV are giving more floor space to vinyl again!! |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ufoclub said: I really want someone to do a audiophile vinyl transfer of the Black Album to CD. That would sound GREAT!
Foefur did a nice job in remastering the black album ... not brilliant, but very very nice indeed. I think that without the original master-tapes you can't do much better than Foefur .... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I agree that vinyl is superior. The only Prince CDs I own are the ones that were not released in vinyl format. Lovesexy sounds gorgeous on LP.
Jeff jeff's fancy blog | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
ThataintFunky said: ufoclub said: I really want someone to do a audiophile vinyl transfer of the Black Album to CD. That would sound GREAT!
Foefur did a nice job in remastering the black album ... not brilliant, but very very nice indeed. I think that without the original master-tapes you can't do much better than Foefur .... no, you can! A pure vinyl transfer will sound better (if you want an accurate version). There used to be the best bootleg version of the black album in 1993 that had Prince's half veiled close up black and white photo (with long hair) on the front, and that appeared to be a audiophile vinyl transfer that sounded startlingly good sand sharp, then in early 1994, they reissued the same bootleg with a flawed version. My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Threads like these are always hilarious. I may have surrounded myself with retro 70s musical gear personally, but I'm certainly not under the illusion that it sounds better in terms of pristine sound quality. It's just a type of coloration that actually possesses less varying information because of the type of distortion inherent to that medium, and that's what people find pleasant about it. "Warmth", in audio terms, is nothing more than a characteristic distortion in certain ranges of the frequency spectrum (and distortion in itself is one type of "cut" or "break" in the flow of sensuous experience - in fact in psychological terms it is actually silence that we cannot perceive as such, and we may find that or may not find that pleasant depending on the person). Also even a lot of vinyls that are pressed of today's records are simply mastered with considerably more bass, because a large consumer base for those are actually DJs. It's funny that most DJs don't even know this themselves, but seem to think vinyls have "more bass" because it's a superior format.
For the record, Prince's recording techniques were far from being purely analog even in the 80s. Sure he was using analog tape like everybody else back in the day, but most of the time he abused the hell out of his digital gear even back then without really caring about whether he was using it according to sound engineering standards or not. His use of effects processors, early digital synths and samplers make the sound digital in the first place - it is NOT an analog mix on the whole. So basically you're still listening especially to his VERY low-quality Linndrum DIGITAL samples and the overt DIGITAL reverberation of certain elements that dominate his mix anyway on the precious analog format. If the analog medium does anything favourable to them it soothes out some unpleasant characteristics of the original sounds. In short: it hides certain limitations of theirs due to the limitations in the "analog" format itself. However, I doubt that was ever fully intended and the difference is rather marginal anyway if not abused creatively (the latter is what they ended up doing, and I wish he would still employ such techniques today). Do you honestly think someone teaching sound engineering doesn't know what he's talking about ?
Uhm. Yes. [Edited 9/28/07 11:24am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dude , read what i posted | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dewrede said: Mindflux said: Rubbish! Your teacher is misguided and I doubt your sound engineering credentials - firstly, because of the answer you put and, secondly, because rather than displaying your own knowledge on the subject, you rooted around on Google and provided someone else's answer - an answer that justifies your own opinion. Just because this answer appeared on another thread does not make it true - and it isn't true! Yes, there are a finite number of samples, but the reason this number was picked (44,100 per second) is because it is more than adequate for vitrually any sound recording . So, whilst the sampling rate information is true, its impact on what is heard is not. You have also only selected this answer, when there are many to choose from on the thread and the its funny how the others also have arguments for the benefits of cd. So, you copied someone else and you were very selective in what you chose. I find it incredible how people are so ready to accept the first thing they read and take it as the truth - you should research your subject, if you have any interest in it, instead of regurgitating something you read somewhere. It has already been said that this is subjective and if people prefer the sound of vinyl, then that is down to them. And there are so many things that affect the sound you hear (how it was recorded, mixed, converted, the equipment you play it on, where you play it etc) - but again, as said before, if you compare like-for-like, cd will outperform vinyl to the average listener. Its only once you start spending thousands of your hard earned that the differences diminish - but most people don't spend that sort of money on hi-fi. However, and it is scientifically proven - the sound you hear on vinly IS coloured and distorted, whereas digital faithfully reproduces the intended sound. If this is not true, then why have the major (and minor) studios upgraded to digital? Bollocks When they made that decision it was believed the human ear couldnt hear beyond 20000 Hzthat which is crap
Besides Do you honestly think someone teaching sound engineering doesn't know what he's talking about ?
[Edited 9/27/07 13:26pm] Ok dewey, let's deal with the points here and then the others you made further down. Firstly, (and yet another indication of how I absolutely doubt you ever attended a sound engineering course) you have highlighted a point I made about the number of samples per second used in the cd format and then used it in argument about the hearing range (frequency) of a human - THEY ARE 2 ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS and can even be understood by someone who HASN'T taken and audio eng course
You also state that a medical fact that has been established for quite some time (that the average human hearing range is 20Hz to 20kHz) is CRAP??!! Can you please supply any evidence to the contrary? Please? Perhaps the Dutch have super-hearing? 
"Do you honestly think someone teaching sound engineering doesn't know what he's talking about ?" - in your teacher's case - YES! As others here, who have deomstrated some knowledge in this field, have also agreed upon. Just because one person teaches it, does not make it so. Do I honestly think that you have done this course - no, I don't. Do I honestly think that you actually called up/emailed you teacher first, after having found an answer to give (NOT YOUR OWN, I might add!) on Google, like any numpty could, and checked with him/her first before posting to avoid potential embarrassment? No, I don't think you did. I do think that you thought by saying you have done this course and your teacher said you were right about this other person's point that you might scare people in to thinking you knew what you were talking about and not question it - sadly, its a continuation of how wrong you are! In your next post, you re-iterate that I and the rest of the medical world are wrong about the human hearing range. Again, please substantiate your unique claim. In your third post, you ask if I don't trust my own judgement over "scientific crap" - well, clearly I do! As I stated, my speakers produce sound up to 30kHz - the science says I can't hear it - my experience is that they sound better than my previous speakers which went to 20kHz. As I am supposed to be unable to hear sounds above 20kHz, what is it that causes this difference? It could be that having sounds present up to 30kHz actually affects the way sounds are delivered right across the frequency range. However, this is a difficult point to prove. So, I know what the science says, I know what I hear and I stated it so - in essence, you have no argument, your point is moot. ...we have only scratched the surface of what the mind can do...
My dance project; www.zubzub.co.uk Listen to any of my tracks in full, for free, here; www.zubzub.bandcamp.com Go and glisten  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dewrede said: dude , read what i posted
Er, Nova clearly did and is disputing it like everyone else - get over it ...we have only scratched the surface of what the mind can do...
My dance project; www.zubzub.co.uk Listen to any of my tracks in full, for free, here; www.zubzub.bandcamp.com Go and glisten | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
only you 2 are
and you're obviously clueless [Edited 9/28/07 12:03pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dewrede said: only you 2 are
and you're obvously clueless So, substantiate ANY of your own argument with thoughts of your own, provide the evidence asked for, or just carry on looking like the only person who doesn't know what they're talking about here. ...we have only scratched the surface of what the mind can do...
My dance project; www.zubzub.co.uk Listen to any of my tracks in full, for free, here; www.zubzub.bandcamp.com Go and glisten | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i don't care
i know i'm right what i posted about vinyl is the truth again ; YOU obviously don't know what you're talking about but , whatever  [Edited 9/28/07 12:07pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dewrede said: i don't care
i know i'm right what i posted about vinyl is the truth again ; YOU obviously don't know what you're talking about [Edited 9/28/07 12:06pm] Hehe - talkin' loud and sayin' nothin'!! Ok, how about this; Nyquist theory During his research into digital audio in the first half of the 20th century, Harry Nyquist (a scientist) produced a simple rule that should be followed to determine appropriate sample rates for differing sounds. "The sample rate should be a little over twice the amount of the highest audio frequency (harmonic) to be recorded if poor sound quality is to be avoided". Because humans can hear audio frequencies as high as 20KHz (20,000cps/Hz), a minimum sample rate of 44.1KHz (or 44,100 sample measurements a second) was decided upon ... Human audio spectrum = 20Hz to 20,000Hz (20KHz) ... therefore ... Highest audio frequency = 20,000Hz ... therefore ... 20,000 x 2 = 40,000 + "a little bit more" = 44,100 samples per second However, it is possible to use lower sample rates and maintain good sound quality when recording sound without high frequency harmonics such as basses and kick drums. NOTE: Increasing the sample rate above 44.1KHz does not dramatically improve the sound. Increasing bit-depth has more impact. Here's the link, with all the information you will need: http://www.planetoftunes...._to_d.html Dewey, pay particular attention to the top of the page; "NOTE: Make sure you are familiar with basic sound theory before reading this article" Sweeet Dreams (in which you are right, despite being shown overwhelming evidence to the contrary) [Edited 9/28/07 12:10pm] ...we have only scratched the surface of what the mind can do...
My dance project; www.zubzub.co.uk Listen to any of my tracks in full, for free, here; www.zubzub.bandcamp.com Go and glisten | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Personally i think its a shame he is dealing with his great albums from the eighties, the way he does.
I mean, such great music on those albums, dying to get remastered.
Some examples: - I hink that Sign of the Times almost loses its 'masterpiece' status, when you listen to the very poor sound quality of the CD-version. - I remember buying the CD-version of Parade, and how dissapointed i was with how 'flat' it did sound compared to the vinyl-version. - I have listened to a digital version of The Black album which is way superior sounding to the CD-version. When i think about it, also most of his albums from the nineties and '00's dont really sound that well. Even his last album, Planet Earth, sounds 'poor' compared to CD's released by other artists in 2007. Some positive exceptions IMO: - The Gold Experience: easily his best sounding album when it comes to dynamics and spaciousness, a bit TOO loud maybe, but nonetheless a great sounding album. - The symbol album: props for the technians who worked on this album for giving space to the different instruments, riffs and lines. - Diamonds and Pearls: Prince and his crew did do a great job on the sound of Michael Blands drums. The other instruments can sometimes sound a bit flat, but the effect on Blands drums still sounds impressive. - The Vault / Chaos and Disorder: obligational records, yes, but in terms of soundquality they sound often way more crisp and vivid then, lets say, Rave unto the Joy Fantastic or Musicology. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i think vinyl sounds better i dunno if its cause i have 1999 extended version on vinyl and its sounds so much better than the version on the hits.....
but i find this with all my vinyls iv got current songs on vinyl and there definetly better on vinyl, kids still by vinyl btw | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Riverpoet31 said: When i think about it, also most of his albums from the nineties and '00's dont really sound that well. Even his last album, Planet Earth, sounds 'poor' compared to CD's released by other artists in 2007. I'd have to disagree, diamonds and pearls onwards, his albums were mastered for CD and sound fine. You might not like the choices of pushing the volume (like COME) or warming the sound (like Planet Earth), but they all sound professional to my ears. Have you ever compared the two different Rave albums? The original to the remix? [Edited 9/28/07 13:48pm] My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dewrede said: dude , read what i posted
I did. It's clear that if you post something like that (very basic knowledge that shouldn't be any news to anyone who has ever recorded a second of music themselves) in response to what Mindflux and others are posting it means you really have no idea what determines the most important characteristics of recorded audio for the human ear to perceive. Even if vinyl would somehow transfer the original recorded sound better and accurately than CDs (the latter it definitely doesn't, the first is up to personal preference), it would still transfer the bits and and interreptions recorded in the first place with digital gear. And let me put it this way: 80s 8-12bit gear that Prince also used was far from hifi. But revel all you want in that kind of state of naivety where any conventional signifier for authenticity implies directly THE TRUTH. Hey, who'd want to dispute with THE TRUTH. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dewrede said: i don't care
i know i'm right what i posted about vinyl is the truth again ; YOU obviously don't know what you're talking about but , whatever
[Edited 9/28/07 12:07pm] Ok... I have read this thread with great interest. Without blowing my own trumpet too much I think I should first justify what I write due to the one sided view here, and the views about 'teachers'. I am a recording engineer, and a degree holder where my paper was written on the use of vintage, analogue and digital equipment. That paper is now being used as source material for lecturers at my old university to teach this subject. I have worked under 2 Grammy award winning engineers, and found both their experiences too. Right... Analogue recording and playback by definition will always be better than digital IN THEORY. However, in practice limitations of the analogue tape, the transfer to tape/vinyl, limitations of the playback media and the playback source will always affect a straight A/B comparison. Digital transfer, media and playback suffer much less. I have heard commercial mixes (from a very well recorded session) on analogue and compared them to digital. At 24bit and 96K a good digital transfer is almost indistinguishable from another analogue copy of the same source. That is also the opinion of the Grammy award winning engineers too. So why does vinyl have a 'better' sound? Yes, on a £5000 deck on a similar costing system, with a well mastered disk it will indeed sound great. Probably technically better than an averagely mastered CD in some areas. However, if the recording was a DVD-Audio transfer, I would say on my system, the pros of that would outweigh the benefits of vinyl. Dewrede... YOUR deck may sound a lot better to you than YOUR CD player. This may be for a number of reasons, not always because technically your deck is of higher fidelity. Every audio source will produce a different sounding output - mostly aimed at their target market. My CD source is pretty much neutral, but I expect that for £5k! However, I can pick out a £200 player that sounds 'louder' and 'punchier' - however that is because it is made *unaturally* louder and punchier, as people like to hear that. It is most likely the case that your deck is made for people who like to hear a punchy sound - and that is what you will get! The second factor is that all 80's and even CDs up to a few years ago were mastered very differently than they are today. Basically a lot quieter and much less compressed. Listen to any 80's Prince CD compared to 3121 and back again, you will hear the difference straight away - probably the same difference in 'punch' between your 80s Prince CDs and vinyl. Everybodies ears are different, and everyone prefers something. I have seem a Grammy award winning artist wander into a studio on a mix session where by chance all the faders were up to the max quite randomly and the mix was compressed to hell. The artist loved it and proclaimed that it was great, and it sounded like it would just pump out of the radio! Of course it would. But it wouldnt sound good to someone sat down and listening! To push this to the extreme I will bet that if you heard my CD player next to your deck, by the end of the session you couldnt tell the difference, or indeed would like the CD better. If need be, I could put a decent compressor and equaliser in the signal chain to recreat what you like about the sound of your deck, but with improvements. So... in a nutshell: 1) Truly great recording engineers don't teach at a school. 2) The theory is that analogue is a better 'method' of music recording. 3) In practice, and for most people digital will suit them best. 4)... and mainly... a subjectively 'better' sound does not always mean higher fidelity. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cds Suck IMO..
When I want some "mellow in my life" I put some vinyl on and soak up the feeling of truth aka = Organic warmth.. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Mindflux said: Because humans can hear audio frequencies as high as 20KHz (20,000cps/Hz), a minimum sample rate of 44.1KHz (or 44,100 sample measurements a second) was decided upon ...
Human audio spectrum = 20Hz to 20,000Hz (20KHz) ... therefore ... Highest audio frequency = 20,000Hz ... therefore ... 20,000 x 2 = 40,000 + "a little bit more" = 44,100 samples per second The Nyquist Theorem would dictate 40,000 samples a second. The "little bit more" you've mentioned wasn't added to enhance the audio but to gain compatibility with existing technology. It's something to do with VHS tape. Is the Nyquist Theorem even correct? SACDs use a much higher sampling rate (2.8224 MHz). | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |