# Vinyl record sales jump 52% in 2014



## qubit (Jan 31, 2015)

Seems that people still have a real thing for this long obsolete format that just won't die.


> In the last five years or so, vinyl has become the hottest thing in the music business, or what’s left of it. You know something’s really infiltrated the mainstream when you see actual vinyl albums and turntables at places like Best Buy and Frys.



TG Daily


----------



## Frick (Jan 31, 2015)

Vinyl's great. If you're into sound and music.


----------



## qubit (Jan 31, 2015)

Frick said:


> Vinyl's great. If you're into sound and music.


Do you mean like in a nightclub?


----------



## Frick (Jan 31, 2015)

qubit said:


> Do you mean like in a nightclub?



Naah all the time, except on the bus. The problem is it's not digital (duh) so you need space for a setup, but again, if you're into it that isn't a problem and in the right setting it can be a nice design choice. And they can sound REALLY, REALLY good. Not to mention the feeling of touching things, it's like reading a huge leatherbounded tome vs reading the same thing on an tablet. It's mood, ambiance.


----------



## Maban (Jan 31, 2015)

I don't remember if I bought any vinyl in 2014 but I bought around 400 used and new records 2009-2013 ranging from three for a dollar at Half Price Books to my most expensive Nightwish Imaginaerum picture disc for ~$50. I don't really care about the quality as much as I do the nostalgia. I wasn't around when vinyl was mainstream so I have a lot of catching up to do.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 31, 2015)

Vinyl?  Posh.  It's all about Mr. Edison and his Diamond Disk recordings.  Their the best thing since the cylinder player!


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 31, 2015)

Yeah... I prefer my FLAC. Even with vinyl rips in FLAC, you can still hear the noise from the vinyl itself. I would rather get it from the studio as FLAC or on a CD (less preferable) as opposed to vinyl form.


----------



## P4-630 (Jan 31, 2015)

For the people who are into old audio media


----------



## AsRock (Jan 31, 2015)

Yes, i find that vinyl will typically have more depth compared to CD's which are often low quality and are more cold sounding without as much depth.

CD's just equal convenience and are artificially boosted to try to sound as good.


----------



## Frick (Jan 31, 2015)

AsRock said:


> Yes, i find that vinyl will typically have more depth compared to CD's which are often low quality and are more cold sounding without as much depth.
> 
> CD's just equal convenience and are artificially boosted to try to sound as good.



Good sounding CD's can be absolutely ballers. The same as any media, it can be crappy and good.

Oh man I want some better speakers/stereo.


----------



## qubit (Jan 31, 2015)

AsRock said:


> Yes, i find that vinyl will typically have more depth compared to CD's which are often low quality and are more cold sounding without as much depth.
> 
> CD's just equal convenience and are artificially boosted to try to sound as good.


I think you're thinking of poorly mastered recordings which will sound crap on any media. These are typically victims of the so-called "loudness war" which compresses the shit out of the music making sound quality poor.

Get a top quality master and then put it on a record and a CD and the difference will become obvious. If nothing else, there will be zero end of side distortion which all record decks suffer (typically heard as a ragged edge on voices) which is also present to a lesser extent throughout the record, plus much better channel separation and waaay lower noise floor. Finally, the sound off a CD never degrades, no matter how many times you play it or how old it gets, unlike an analog record which degrades from the very first play due to wear and tear.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 31, 2015)

As a format thats one thing 
for sound now thats something completely different. from what ive heard, digital sound is more damaging to your ears. And i think that is the case. 

I have vinyl frrom the Punk days.

 Bet it sounds ace, i havent owned a record player for 20 years.

So digital for storage and ease.
Vinyl for quality.


----------



## Frick (Jan 31, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> for sound now thats something completely different. from what ive heard, digital sound is more damaging to your ears. And i think that is the case.



Ey? Why?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 31, 2015)

More rounded sound.

Apparently the wave lengths of vinyl sound are less spiky, i can probably find pics that are more descriptive than my words, here we go

  nice and soft from vinyl








Spiky from digital.


*This isnt a scientific description. It is meant as how it was described to me by an audologist. so please dont shoot me down.
*
i am not an expert, i prefer vinyl and the theory above may explain why it is the case for me.

The "spikier" sound damages the little hairs in your ears more than the "rounded" sound.


----------



## natr0n (Jan 31, 2015)

Modern vinyl recording is not recorded live to vinyl, so it is a false representation.


----------



## mx500torid (Jan 31, 2015)

I dont know what you mean as "modern" but they do have Direct to Disc that are live and put straight to vinyl.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 31, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> More rounded sound.
> 
> Apparently the wave lengths of vinyl sound are less spiky, i can probably find pics that are more descriptive than my words, here we goView attachment 62295  nice and soft from vinyl
> 
> ...


That makes no sense, what you're describing is why people *think* that higher sampling rates cause hearing damage and they use the frequency excuse. Unfortunately that isn't how it works. 192Khz doesn't neccessarily produce frequencies up to that, but rather there is an audio sample for every 1/192,000 of a second versus the 1/48,000 of standard audio. This does increase the maximum possible producable frequency, but it doesn't introduce it which is why it doesn't damage hearing. The higher frequency would have to exist in the recording itself and picked up by audio equipment. Higher sampling rates will reproduce a sound more accurately because instead of having one "point" to describe a sound at any given time, 192Khz will have several, or around 4 samples for every one sample on traditional audio.

I just wanted to clarify that before people start coming to false conclusions.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 31, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> That makes no sense, what you're describing is why people *think* that higher sampling rates cause hearing damage and they use the frequency excuse. Unfortunately that isn't how it works. 192Khz doesn't neccessarily produce frequencies up to that, but rather there is an audio sample for every 1/192,000 of a second versus the 1/48,000 of standard audio. This does increase the maximum possible producable frequency, but it doesn't introduce it which is why it doesn't damage hearing. The higher frequency would have to exist in the recording itself and picked up by audio equipment. Higher sampling rates will reproduce a sound more accurately because instead of having one "point" to describe a sound at any given time, 192Khz will have several, or around 4 samples for every one sample on traditional audio.
> 
> I just wanted to clarify that before people start coming to false conclusions.





It makes perfect sense to me.

What you are describing is completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed and is audio gobblydegook.

You are obviously spoiling for an argument which you think you will win because of your "perceived" wisdom.
I expressed my opinion through terms i imagined members might understand.
You obviously did the complete opposite.


im not  sure if you noticed the statement in bold print

*This isnt a scientific description. It is meant as how it was described to me by an audologist. so please dont shoot me down.*





Aquinus said:


> I just wanted to clarify that before people start coming to false conclusions.



About what?   the original thread?

If you want me to pick holes in your opinion in post # 7 i will.


----------



## qubit (Jan 31, 2015)

@CAPSLOCKSTUCK, @Aquinus isn't spoiling for an argument. He just explained why high resolution digital audio gives a better sound and isn't damaging to the ears. It's not gobblydegook.

Unfortunately, I have to go out now, so I can't give a more detailed reply at this moment.

Bottom line is that whoever told you that digital sound "damages ears" either didn't know what they were talking about or was lying to you / winding you up. Think about it, the sound off your PC is digital and you haven't gone deaf listening to it, have you? 



Aquinus said:


> That makes no sense, what you're describing is why people *think* that higher sampling rates cause hearing damage and they use the frequency excuse. Unfortunately that isn't how it works. 192Khz doesn't neccessarily produce frequencies up to that, but rather there is an audio sample for every 1/192,000 of a second versus the 1/48,000 of standard audio. This does increase the maximum possible producable frequency, but it doesn't introduce it which is why it doesn't damage hearing. The higher frequency would have to exist in the recording itself and picked up by audio equipment. Higher sampling rates will reproduce a sound more accurately because instead of having one "point" to describe a sound at any given time, 192Khz will have several, or around 4 samples for every one sample on traditional audio.
> 
> I just wanted to clarify that before people start coming to false conclusions.


Troublemaker.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 31, 2015)

No i havent and that is not the point of the thread.

It damages the little hairs in your ears is what i said.

This argument has raged since the advent of digitized sound and that is what we are speaking about in essence.

Vinyl........ analogue.

A vinyl record copied onto cd or any other format including FLAC is digitized.

I am old enough to have enjoyed both.

I prefer vinyl...

If you would like me to explain the early recording industry techniques i will, not sure if i can be bothered to though.




qubit said:


> Troublemaker.




What little old me  ?






oooh look an old analogue wavelength all smooth and lovely.     And digital all onny and offy




Me not arguing, me agreeing to disagree,.........

ooooooo    bloody digital hurts the little hairs in my ears.










Sorry Mods we appear to be tangentizing again.


----------



## qubit (Feb 1, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> No i havent and that is not the point of the thread.
> 
> It damages the little hairs in your ears is what i said.
> 
> ...


Well, saying the hairs in your ears would be damaged is the same as saying it makes you deaf (or hearing impaired) since without those hairs you can't hear anything.

I know how analog recording works and also digital. Once again, digital audio does zero damage to your ears. In short, the digital sampling recovers the full waveform and a strong analog filter removes any ultrasonic artifacts from the output. It's a complex subject, but I Googled introduction to digital audio which linked to some sites giving a nice intro to this subject if you want to learn more about it - first link especially is rather good. Note that nowhere will you find that digital audio damages ears, that's just a myth.

It's ok to talk about this in this thread, because of the subject of my poll.

Finally, I was just joking with Aquinus about him being a "troublemaker", hence his quote just before it.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 1, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> No i havent and that is not the point of the thread.
> 
> It damages the little hairs in your ears is what i said.
> 
> ...



The problem with your argument is that by digital you mean more square-like rather than sine-like waves. If that were true, than higher sampling rates would mitigate such damage. The problem is from an anatomical standpoint, I don't understand how it could damage your hearing unless it was too loud. My wife listens to music really loud and if she listened to vinyl just as loudly I'm sure it would damage her hearing just as much.

Also, I do have some vinyl rips in FLAC and they sound just like the real thing. I would be more likely to blame to bad audio device for poor quality sound than lossless audio.

I'll let you believe whatever you want to believe though. I'm not in the mood for arguing. I'm on vacation.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 1, 2015)

If you listened to true digital sound (which would be two tones, one super high and one mute), yes it would hurt.

But all digital sound is converted to analog before output by a DAC.  No question it won't hurt you...  Unless you are blasting your brains out but that's a given.


----------



## MilkyWay (Feb 1, 2015)

Hahahaha the most laughable thing about Vinyl is that most of it is made from digital recordings these days. In the olden days music was master recorded in analog thus you got full analog quality on a Vinyl.
I have a Garrard turntable with a decent head but i hardly use it, i just prefer to have mediamonkey on my pc play in the background because i can store a gazillion FLAC files.


----------



## revin (Feb 1, 2015)

Have a Technics RSM270X deck with DBX recorder AND DBX Disc processer.

Technics SLQ2 with Audio-Technica AT-15SS Nude Super Shibata diamond with beryllium cantilever.

Had a special mastered copy of Heart Dreamboat Annie,  and coming thru my Infinity RSe Studio monitors was unreal ! It had a Dynamic Range of 95-110db, words cant describe the sound
That was insane album. but even regular records with that cartrage, and even my current AT14S Nude Shibata was such a pleasure to hear.

That remind's me, I got to try it thru the VSX39TX and A/B the Polk 75's and RSe's for some fun !!!

Also have a Picture Disc of Rush Hemispheres and Boston cool looking, shit sound !


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 1, 2015)

> Hahahaha the most laughable thing about Vinyl is that most of it is made from digital recordings these days. In the olden days music was master recorded in analog thus you got full analog quality on a Vinyl.



And the full benefits of analog master degradation with each play.  You'd better hope your copy was an early one...

I think people are forgetting it's not digital that's the problem.  It's actually a solution.  It's compression and dumb formatting of the digital audio.  MP3s for example, were pretty shitty compared to good analog.  But good analog doesn't come cheap, or easy.  Or portable for that matter.

I'm of the opinion good digital (uncompressed from the studio for instance with high bitrate) will clobber any analog system.  There is no reason why it shouldn't.


----------



## Maban (Feb 1, 2015)

I think a better poll would be "Who is annoyed by the analog versus digital debate?" Why can't we just say that under ideal circumstances for either format they both sound good enough that the human ear won't give a damn which one it is?


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 1, 2015)

Maban said:


> I think a better poll would be "Who is annoyed by the analog versus digital debate?" Why can't we just say that under ideal circumstances for either format they both sound good enough that the human ear won't give a damn which one it is?



This is a true comment.  But the benefit of digital is more than one play to a listener being ok, it's 1:1 reproduction of the quality of sound.  Using an analog as a master today is not only bad practice, but dangerous to the copies longevity and the entire large scale reproduction run.


----------



## micropage7 (Feb 1, 2015)

back to title, one reason that makes it booming maybe at some points vinyl is different, you may have thousands of cd and its all the same but vinyl is different and it feels pretty personal


----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 1, 2015)

I can't personally attest but I hear from others that it has a more organic sound (analog) as opposed to lossless (digital).

I doubt for most it would matter. I take it more and more people are DJing? I can't really see why there would be so much of a boost.


----------



## HammerON (Feb 1, 2015)

P4-630 said:


> For the people who are into old audio media


Wow - 8 track audio solution. Nothing to do with vinyl...


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 1, 2015)

HammerON said:


> Wow - 8 track audio solution. Nothing to do with vinyl...



It's analog.  Otherwise, spot on.  I thought it was an odd choice too.  

Lets have another vaguely related factoid:  I actually own both two hand crank phonographs (one of them a diamond disc player, yes), a modern record player, and both an 8-track and reel to reel.  I'm sorta an expert on weird analog things (ie, not good ones).  Early records weren't made of vynyl, but rather a composite with the consistency of Bakelite and in Mr. Edisons case, a cardboard core.  The idea behind the cardboard core was to resist breaking, but instead it got most of his "rich mans trash" records burned during the great depression because they made excellent firewood substitute.  This makes them amongst the rarest records to collect (unless considering cylinders, of course).


----------



## repman244 (Feb 1, 2015)

MilkyWay said:


> Hahahaha the most laughable thing about Vinyl is that most of it is made from digital recordings these days. In the olden days music was master recorded in analog thus you got full analog quality on a Vinyl.
> I have a Garrard turntable with a decent head but i hardly use it, i just prefer to have mediamonkey on my pc play in the background because i can store a gazillion FLAC files.



That is true however if you compare the dynamic range of the recording from a vinyl and the CD the vinyl is always superior (however if the recording is crap it will sound crap and even more crap on a CD).
You probably heard about loudness wars but that doesn't work on vinyl because you wouldn't even be able to play a very compressed vinyl.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 1, 2015)

HammerON said:


> Wow - 8 track audio solution. Nothing to do with vinyl...



Ok so we are all agreed then ,,..i am right.


Joke.

We are all right and we have managed to debate this in a mature fashion. 

Good God.....I actually own some records. Aaaaaaaaand they are.on vinyl.


@Aquinus   i hope these arent too loud for you.






And to conclude my involvement in this debate


----------



## nexus_a (Feb 1, 2015)

Depends on the source. Nowadays all records are mastered in digital format so what's the point of vinyl? They might even be mastered from a CD source...
http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/29-vinyl-records-and-digital-audio/
Also mentioned in the article: bass reproduction on vinyls might be inaccurate, which is why people feel vinyls sound warmer.


----------



## repman244 (Feb 1, 2015)

nexus_a said:


> Depends on the source. Nowadays all records are mastered in digital format so what's the point of vinyl? They might even be mastered from a CD source...
> http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/29-vinyl-records-and-digital-audio/
> Also mentioned in the article: bass reproduction on vinyls might be inaccurate, which is why people feel vinyls sound warmer.



Like I said before it's not exactly the same, even if they are mastered from a CD (yes it still sounds bad compared to a true vinyl master) but the dynamic range is not the same.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 1, 2015)

I don't think any sane studio would master from a vinyl.  Heck, even back in the old days they didn't.  They used an acid and metal printer press sorta thing that burned the grooves in irrc.  Today if you get a good vinyl, it's almost certainly due to it being from a GOOD uncompressed digital master.  No ones going to bother with the other process anymore.


----------



## qubit (Feb 1, 2015)

Blue-Knight said:


> There is a demand for vinyl. They will make vinyl because they want money. Most people who buy vinyl do not care about how it was produced just want the vinyl for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, the next Bond movie is being shot on film instead of digitally like the last few. Allegedly, it improves the look of the film, but I call BS. Perhaps it's just cheaper or something.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 1, 2015)

Allegedly, it improves the look of the film,



Oh no !

@qubit stop doing this to me !


----------



## qubit (Feb 1, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Allegedly, it improves the look of the film,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wassup? I read that in a news article, it's not me saying it. You see I call BS on it.

Also, I gave you a comprehensive reply about digital audio a few posts up, with helpful links, but not heard back from you. Do you still think it damages your hearing after all that discussion we've had about it?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 1, 2015)

No No No

you get me all wrong. I enjoyed our last discusion.


They probably are shooting the next Bond on film.
It will be because of quality without a doubt.   ,in my humble opinion.

OR...before we have another "discussion" the human eyes perception of quality, whether that be colour depth, contrast or the quality of black.




qubit said:


> Allegedly, it improves the look of the film, but I call BS. Perhaps it's just cheaper or something.



You are saying you think it is cheaper or something.

It isnt cheaper, by a large margin. I will provide links if you like or you could gooooogle it.

Most film makers would rather use film but the comparitive cost is prohibitive.
Even something as simple as transporting the film at the end of the day for processing and storage.

What is this something of which you speak.?


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 1, 2015)

Do you really think that the media a recording is copied to is more important than the process used to record the audio in the first place? I don't think this discussion can happen without taking in account how audio recording has changed over the years. Audio is being created digitally so to me, it only makes sense to provide a digital copy. I've heard some 96 and 192Khz FLAC and it sounds great, but I'm sure the only reason it sounds great is because the hardware recording it was good and it was recorded at a higher sampling rate than the copy I got it at. So, I think there are a lot of factors that go into good sounding audio. From the method it was recorded all the way to the DAC that reproduces it, vinyl is just one of those steps to audio reproduction. It's like a bottleneck on a computer, you can make one component super fast, but that won't make any difference if everything else is super slow.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 1, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Do you really think that the media a recording is copied to is more important than the process used to record the audio in the first place? I don't think this discussion can happen without taking in account how audio recording has changed over the years. Audio is being created digitally so to me, it only makes sense to provide a digital copy. I've heard some 96 and 192Khz FLAC and it sounds great, but I'm sure the only reason it sounds great is because the hardware recording it was good and it was recorded at a higher sampling rate than the copy I got it at. So, I think there are a lot of factors that go into good sounding audio. From the method it was recorded all the way to the DAC that reproduces it, vinyl is just one of those steps to audio reproduction. It's like a bottleneck on a computer, you can make one component super fast, but that won't make any difference if everything else is super slow.




i agree with everything you just said and i think that it is more in keeping with the tone of this thread....................... Vinyl versus CD




Aquinus said:


> the media a recording is copied to is more important than the process used to record the audio in the first place?




And that is the key to it.                Nowadays.

Parts of vinyl process were digitised over time and some would say resulting in a loss of quality.
Nowadays all of the process is digitised, from the instruments used, the recording process, the storage method and the playback method and the means of delivery whether it be by headphones or digital speakers.

It's like a bottleneck on a computer, you can make one component super fast, but that won't make any difference if everything else is super slow.

that statement has no bearing at all in this.


@qubit i didnt see the links, i have reread your posts and found them now. Thanks


----------



## RCoon (Feb 1, 2015)

As a secondary job (besides reviewing as a tertiary job!), I print media for a record label (Jehu & Chinaman). However said record label produces cassette tapes. Apparently they're all the rage these days, although their audio quality is not exactly renowned. I got a free limited run cassette from a band I quite liked who were signed under the record label last year. Pretty sure it was the second ever produced, so who knows, might be worth something in a while:




As for records, you don't necessarily need a big set up to enjoy a record. Although you're sacrificing audio quality for novelty in this case  You can buy cheap chinese copies of this for a few dollars, but if you buy one with quality components it can cost a pretty penny. Parents bought me this puppy years ago when there were no cheap chinese copies, and it still works to this day!
(Yes, it drives around the record while playing it)


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 1, 2015)

I have vinyl from 40 years ago that still work
I have cassettes from 30 years ago that still work.
I have cds i was given for xmas.......already fucked.


And remember  retro is cool.


----------



## Lopez0101 (Feb 1, 2015)

Sounds like you need to take better care of your CDs...

I have some FLACs recorded from vinyl that sound very nice, but I also have FLACs that seem to be from a different source than the .mp3's of the same album and those FLACs sound just as good, just without the background noise of vinyl.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 1, 2015)

Blue-Knight said:


> Well, I am sure if you treat your CDs with the same care they would work for many years as well.



I can remember seeing a tv programme when they first came out with a guy smearing jam all over one, they were meant to be indestructible.


----------



## Frederik S (Feb 1, 2015)

Why sampling rates beyond 44.1 kHz is nonsense: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

If we assume the same master is used a CD provides much higher fidelity than vinyl. The tonality imperfections of vinyl can easily be added via an EQ and a filter if you like the popping sound. FLAC played back from any half decent PC can be somewhat better than even a high-end CD player due to lower jitter. 

When people mention dynamic range as an issue please be aware you get 96 dB with normal 16 bit material. High dynamic range in a recording is 30, the only reason I can see for having more is to reduce issues with ill constructed software volume controllers.


----------



## Frick (Feb 1, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> I'm of the opinion good digital (uncompressed from the studio for instance with high bitrate) will clobber any analog system.  There is no reason why it shouldn't.



At that point I'm pretty sure no one can tell the difference without measurements.

I just know classical music makes awesome vinyls, at least to me. Music is so much more than bitrates and sampling rates and whatever.


----------



## Lopez0101 (Feb 1, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> they were meant to be indestructible.



How many times has marketing said that about any product. Smearing jam and wiping it off is different than throwing the CD in a pile of other CDs or the back of your car.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 1, 2015)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3940669.stm

this was from 2004 and they have degraded since then as well i suppose.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 1, 2015)

Frederik S said:


> Why sampling rates beyond 44.1 kHz is nonsense: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
> 
> If we assume the same master is used a CD provides much higher fidelity than vinyl. The tonality imperfections of vinyl can easily be added via an EQ and a filter if you like the popping sound. FLAC played back from any half decent PC can be somewhat better than even a high-end CD player due to lower jitter.
> 
> When people mention dynamic range as an issue please be aware you get 96 dB with normal 16 bit material. High dynamic range in a recording is 30, the only reason I can see for having more is to reduce issues with ill constructed software volume controllers.



I think his video was better at getting that point across without getting too deep into it: http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml


----------



## qubit (Feb 2, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> No No No
> 
> you get me all wrong. I enjoyed our last discusion.
> 
> ...


I don't know the real reason why they chose film for the next Bond film other than the claim that it was supposed to be better somehow and surmised that the real reason might be due to cost, so I could well be wrong.

I watched Kingsman tonight in a modern, high spec cinema and the picture was bright, clear and detailed, since it was digitally recorded. On top of that, it of course didn't have any of that annoying wobbling movement that film has. Oh, it was a great film too. Recommended.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 2, 2015)

Film is like audio i think.    It is so subjective.   

Its like the Coke and Pepsi blind taste.

I dont understand what you mean by the wobbling movement.

Have a look at this...
https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-per-second/10150222861171558


it talks about the difference between the conventional 24 FPS that has been used in movies for the last 90 odd years and the difference 48 FPS makes.. It gives a different spin to the gamers angle on FPS.


----------



## micropage7 (Feb 2, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Film is like audio i think.    It is so subjective.
> 
> Its like the Coke and Pepsi blind taste.



yea, i think its very subjective i recall one audio expert said that the ear is the most accurate device, you may set the audio right but at some cases it aint sounds right to your ears


----------



## qubit (Feb 4, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Film is like audio i think.    It is so subjective.
> 
> Its like the Coke and Pepsi blind taste.
> 
> ...


I tried googling for film wobble, but could only find this one rather poor example of it. Zoom the page and you'll see how the movie credit wobbles from side to side. We've all seen it on many films and is often noticeable on scenes which are fairly static. It's one of the annoyances that digital does away with.

http://www.michaeldvd.com/Articles/VideoArtefacts/VideoArtefactsTelecineWobble.html

Yeah, I saw that Hobbit article some time ago. Looks like people don't like the improved picture higher framerate gives you and this is why we've been stuck with crappy 24fps for so long. In fact, apart from that one movie a couple of years ago, I can't think of any others which have been shot at 48fps. Such a shame.

There's another thing to consider. There's no judder (strobing in film circles) since the 48fps film shows each frame once, while the 24fps film shows each frame twice, otherwise 24Hz flicker would be extremely noticeable and intolerably annoying.

You would think that watching 60fps video would eliminate judder, wouldn't you? It doesn't necessarily, however. If I set my monitor refresh to 120Hz and the NVIDIA driver control panel to vsync on with half refresh, then the animation is being rendered at 60fps and will show a constant judder as each frame is shown twice.


----------



## revin (Feb 4, 2015)

Frederik S said:


> Why sampling rates beyond 44.1 kHz is nonsense: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
> If we assume the same master is used a CD provides much higher fidelity than vinyl. The tonality imperfections of vinyl can easily be added via an EQ and a filter if you like the popping sound. FLAC played back from any half decent PC can be somewhat better than even a high-end CD player due to lower jitter.
> When people mention dynamic range as an issue please be aware you get 96 dB with normal 16 bit material. High dynamic range in a recording is 30, the only reason I can see for having more is to reduce issues with ill constructed software volume controllers.


 
Neil has flip flop'd on this little too much. As in trying to do "upconverted" files as high end",  his Pono player didn't go over very well.

Dont forget, 16 bit 96db Dynimac range.....That's the theroretical limit, after some noise floor is from the mic, thru the op-amp to the speaker, add minimun 3 bit's, thats *18db*, so that 96 in now about *78db*.if your lucky the engi/producer didn't go for the Loudness warring crap. Which BTW, ever wonder why a "CD" is not as _loud as a record or FM _

Bump up to the 24 bit, 144db, ..................now you got room to loose that 18db even say it's a really crappy equipment, 20db of noise.
Same with 44 vs 96,~ 320 

Mark is now one of the most involved players for Hi-Res Audio, and JBL is on board with the new M2's
Take either M2 setup, and try out the differant files, and you will know then there is  differance.

Ok, again............ here is some of the greatest info about the high bit rate  *High-Def Audio*
Scott Wilkerson talks with Mark Waldrep of AIX Records about physical media vs online distribution, high-def audio.

Boston, ACDC, Tori Amos, Pink Floyd and Metallica with the Philiharmonic Orcestra, Oh Hell yeah just some that can have HUGE Dynamic Range, ............that's what the "other" people that arn't cd"jamm'n"

I have yet to hear Heart DreamBoat Annie that sound as good as the DBX VINYL record did, back in the "Hi-Fi war day's in 1980


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Feb 4, 2015)

The only real quality audio is using an oscilloscope with GHz sampling to record the performances.  http://hackaday.com/2014/12/26/the-four-thousand-dollar-mp3-player/

Vinyl is "better" because it has noise built into it.  After listening to songs on a cd, and on vinyl, I can't see the advantage.  It's great if you're in a club, but I can't really see using it anywhere else.

Many CDs are trash, due in no small part to the continuing increase in recording volume.  If you can, try comparing a CD from the early 90's to a greatest hits compilation.  


Despite all of this, I listen to music.  Crank the volume down, and listen to what you enjoy.  90% of the music quality at 70% of the effort and cost is just fine with me.  I can't justify spending hundreds of dollars to get that last 10% of music's quality.


----------



## revin (Feb 4, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> The only real quality audio


 Is at home, for some it's a sweet record, or even an awesome 1/4 30ips  or a high quaility digital, and then to relax and get immersered with thier faviorte headphone or speakers


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 4, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Despite all of this, I listen to music. Crank the volume down, and listen to what you enjoy. 90% of the music quality at 70% of the effort and cost is just fine with me. I can't justify spending hundreds of dollars to get that last 10% of music's quality.


That is how I was feeling but I think everything has to be weighed in its use value. If you're listening to audio all day long, it's going to be worth a lot more to someone who uses it for a hobby in their down time. For me, 100 USD used to be a lot of money for headphones but I got some Sennheiser 280 Pros for that price and quickly changed that view. They sound pretty good, but I'm sure they're not perfect. I got them because it got at least 90% quality (that I think I have, even if in reality it is less) at 70% effort (that I put in at the time) and gave me 100% of what I needed. The problem is that it took time for my idea of "good enough" to evolve when for the longest time I was using garbage, I just didn't know better. Also for those of us with sensitive and wide range hearing, high pitched noises like whine from CRT displays and noisy environments can be bothersome, so noise canceling is sometimes just as important as the audio reproduction itself. Imagine trying to write code with people talking nearby all the time; after a while it drives you insane and you need a solution. 

All in all, as far as clarity is concerned lossless audio is a must. Vinyl degrades the more you play it and the older it gets. FLAC lasts as long as the media it is stored on and quality doesn't degrade as it's copied or transcoded to another lossless format. I personally wish audio was delivered as FLAC without any lossy compression in between what I get and when it was recorded.


----------



## Lopez0101 (Feb 4, 2015)

It's not like storage space is at a premium these days either. 2TB+ hard drives are incredibly cheap these days.



Aquinus said:


> high pitched noises like whine from CRT displays



I always feel like I'm the only one that can hear them...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 4, 2015)

We're spinning baby round round baby like a record baby round round round round.




lilhasselhoffer said:


> fine with me.





revin said:


> get immersered





Aquinus said:


> everything has to be weighed in its use value.




The proof is in the hearing, shit if you like it, you like it.

Its not just the vinyl / cd thing.  Its where you are, who your with, where your head is at, what you are listening to,and what you are listening to it on and what media its produced on.

When my kids find a tasty tune i tell them to turn it up. Even if one of them is on a Stylophone and the other playing Dubstep.

When i was a kid you could still find vinyl that played at 33/45 and 78 rpm, how does that compare to even a slow HDD or cd player now. It doesnt mean that the listener enjoyed it less.

Anologue, digital, acoustic, synthesised, ---------------TURN IT UP ............................. (within safe guidelines as recommended by The Man )


EDIT   i just changed my vote to ........not sure......
i reckon a .......... dont care category ........would have scored well.


----------



## Frederik S (Feb 5, 2015)

revin said:


> Neil has flip flop'd on this little too much. As in trying to do "upconverted" files as high end",  his Pono player didn't go over very well.
> 
> Dont forget, 16 bit 96db Dynimac range.....That's the theroretical limit, after some noise floor is from the mic, thru the op-amp to the speaker, add minimun 3 bit's, thats *18db*, so that 96 in now about *78db*.if your lucky the engi/producer didn't go for the Loudness warring crap. Which BTW, ever wonder why a "CD" is not as _loud as a record or FM _
> 
> ...



Even 78 dB is more than twice of what is needed for a classical high dynamic range recording, 16 bit is still more than enough. The reason why FM is louder is because of compression due to "the loudness war".

The most annoying thing is that high-res audio from most online shops is 320 kbps MP3 which adds all sorts of oddities which is noticeable if the recording is close to perfect. It would be great if more shops adopted FLAC as their high-end format.


----------



## revin (Feb 5, 2015)

Thank you for about the compresion, I'd not taken that part into reasoning. Hadn't thought about that, but my first CD, when compared to the record, was far more quiet, so there again could have been the MM vs MC , in that a MM had a higher output @1v IDK  Even today, again the radio is louder, you'd think they'd want thier CD to be as loud lol
78db is only if all the ducks in the row were perferct, alot would be closer to 60-75db, still falling short for good Dynamic range, but as you pointed out the loudness war 

There are many songs that far exceed 78db, many over 100db, as from the $1200 player post
*Here* is a list of  Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here, and note from the differant engineers [James Guthrie and Joel Plantethe] ,not sure but Alan Parsons may still been engineering,  differance of dynaminc range, some are PCM, 640kbs others are 24/48, 24/96 very interesting the approach  Parlophone Records, EMI, Capitol, CBS/Sony, Columbia took, and can be noted they moved to give the best audio possable to the consumer.

Also a Reel to Reel copy at 30 ips is something to be heard 

Tori Amos is very dynamic with her music, Silent all these Years is a good example, as there are many many more.
 
I did have a PCM 320kbs of WYWH [.wav] from  years ago, it was the best recording I had ever heard.
Apperantly Red Hot Chili Peppers did a release on vinyl and digital, more often  the vinyl was picked as sounding better, so we know it can be done, it's just most folks didn't keep "outdated" electronics.



Frederik S said:


> The most annoying thing is that high-res audio from most online shops is 320 kbps MP3 which adds all sorts of oddities which is noticeable if the recording is close to perfect. It would be great if more shops adopted FLAC as their high-end format.


 
Seem's HD TRACKS tried to pull off some sad tactics of cheating for Hi-Res  as did iTunes

iTRAX from Mark Waldrep has been setting up true "Hi-Res" downloads, AND even has original PCM Master files long with Meridian Lossless Packing, now Dolby TrueHD ,Flac.
At any rate to each thier own, but 24/96 has been uprising for quite some time now, and it appears that Artist are having the label and engineers make Hi Res audio including *records * and a lot of public consumers are indeed wanting it!


----------



## Frederik S (Feb 7, 2015)

revin said:


> Thank you for about the compresion, I'd not taken that part into reasoning. Hadn't thought about that, but my first CD, when compared to the record, was far more quiet, so there again could have been the MM vs MC , in that a MM had a higher output @1v IDK  Even today, again the radio is louder, you'd think they'd want thier CD to be as loud lol
> 78db is only if all the ducks in the row were perferct, alot would be closer to 60-75db, still falling short for good Dynamic range, but as you pointed out the loudness war At any rate to each thier own, but 24/96 has been uprising for quite some time now, and it appears that Artist are having the label and engineers make Hi Res audio including *records * and a lot of public consumers are indeed wanting it!


There is no mention anywhere on that page regarding dynamic range. Only peak levels are noted which of course should be around 100 dB if engineered correctly. The high definition masters I have of Pink Floyd have a dynamic range of around 30 dB. The noise floor is -86 dB. Since you usually do not listen at a 100 dB but more around 75 dB the distance to the zero is 65 dB. Done with audacity and no I did not go through all I took the MFSL master of Another brick in the wall pt 3. So peak to peak in the recording uses all available range -10 max (no clipping), which is not needed to have non audible sections and the DR which is extreme is around the 30 dB (lets say 35 dB because I did not go through all). If they aligned the peak with the maximum of the medium they would have an even blacker background, but that is not needed as the range is still way beyond what is audible.


----------



## revin (Feb 7, 2015)

You have the Master copy of Wish You Were Here ?
And wondering how the MFSL master's compare to the Colombia, or Sony releases.
I'm not so sure Part 3 the Wall is a represinative adution of DR, but are the MF lab's are only for the best vinyl recordings they made[not like the so called back in the day 2 track Japan [crap}

Somewhere iirc there was around 120db of dynmic range on WYWH.
A while after the title cut starts when some drums come in, and then after the end of the elevator ride, into Have a Cigar is Very loud,

Listening levels are independant of a recordings Dynimac Raange, and yes indeed I have listened at extreme levels thru headphones, and speakers

BTW I appreaciate you going thru the effort and contributing to this !
.


----------



## Frederik S (Feb 7, 2015)

I do not have the master but I have several different masterings of most of the Pink Floyd records. DCC, MFSL, newer releases etc.


----------



## revin (Feb 8, 2015)

Frederik S said:


> I do not have the master but I have several different masterings of most of the Pink Floyd records. DCC, MFSL, newer releases etc.


 That's sweet brother !
That special DBX Dreamboat Annie had  notice on it that A. It was a very delicate record, and B. it had 109db of Dynamic Range to use caution at high volumes.[Tape recordings were able to go 110-120db]
What Generation would the WYWH be from [mabey link back to the discogrrophy page] and just so i'm clear, it's for vinyl release ?

Can you post  quick file of those couple spots off the WYWH album and note if it is from vinyl or digital?

I did a look today and it said at about 4:20 into title cut WYWH was a "stagering 120db DR", but I'm pretty sure it is from the LPCM, and then the DR begining of Have a Cigar.

I've seen today how some on youtube are showing the nasty tidbits of compression, and how some indeed keep the Gain much lower[like the -10b] to make compression more viable, but way nasty'
Thanks again for all you input Fredrik !


----------



## remixedcat (Feb 8, 2015)

@m1dg3t I think he was on about vinyl too


----------



## m1dg3t (Feb 8, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> @m1dg3t I think he was on about vinyl too


 
I'm on drugs. Sound is analog. My ear comprehends an analog signal and my brain processes these vibrations and lets me hear shit. Vinyl, when done right sounds better. Digital media sacrifices quality for ease of use and portability, plain and simple.  IMHO of course. 
Of all the media i own, i would say on average that my vinyl sounds better than my digital stuff...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 8, 2015)

m1dg3t said:


> I'm on drugs. Sound is analog. My ear comprehends an analog signal and my brain processes these vibrations and lets me hear shit. Vinyl, when done right sounds better. Digital media sacrifices quality for ease of use and portability, plain and simple.  IMHO of course.
> Of all the media i own, i would say on average that my vinyl sounds better than my digital stuff...




best post ive seen for ages, on any topic, and a brilliant avatar too.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 8, 2015)

m1dg3t said:


> I'm on drugs. Sound is analog. My ear comprehends an analog signal and my brain processes these vibrations and lets me hear shit. Vinyl, when done right sounds better. Digital media sacrifices quality for ease of use and portability, plain and simple.  IMHO of course.
> Of all the media i own, i would say on average that my vinyl sounds better than my digital stuff...


You do realize that by the time the DAC is done with it, it's analog again, right? You're never listening to a "digital" signal. Just an analog one reproduced from digital components. Also every time you listen to a vinyl, it heats up and the quality degrades with every playback.

The argument for vinyl is dumb (in my opinion) since there are formats and methods that will reproduce sound as well if not better, sampling and bit depth aside. Nothing should have better quality than a lossless medium.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 8, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> You do realize that by the time the DAC is done with it, it's analog again, right? You're never listening to a "digital" signal. Just an analog one reproduced from digital components. Also every time you listen to a vinyl, it heats up and the quality degrades with every playback.
> 
> The argument for vinyl is dumb (in my opinion) since there are formats and methods that will reproduce sound as well if not better, sampling and bit depth aside. Nothing should have better quality than a lossless medium.



Its an end user thing and i think maybe @m1dg3t and myself are one end of the user scale and @Aquinus the other.
Aquinus you are a technical expert and an audiophile and i respect you for that,@revin too. and @Frederik S   I have learned a lot from this thread.

Im all for kicking back and turning it up. Ive got vinyl, ive got cd's, ive got youtube.   I use youtube by far the most.......but thats me.


----------



## qubit (Feb 8, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> You do realize that by the time the DAC is done with it, it's analog again, right? You're never listening to a "digital" signal. Just an analog one reproduced from digital components. Also every time you listen to a vinyl, it heats up and the quality degrades with every playback.
> 
> The argument for vinyl is dumb (in my opinion) since there are formats and methods that will reproduce sound as well if not better, sampling and bit depth aside. *Nothing should have better quality than a lossless medium.*


Agreed, especially with the bold bit.

This reminds me that a prototype true digital record system was developed a long time ago. Just imagine, "perfect" digital sound paired with the wear characteristics of a mechanical record player - all sounds great until that record wears out too much and develops dropouts and odd clicks and pops, which get worse with repeated plays, lol. No doubt this is one of the reasons it didn't take off.

Also, you know how you can hear the sound directly from the stylus running through the record grooves? I'd love to know what the equivalent sounded like on that digital record.


----------



## revin (Feb 9, 2015)

Well your all correct this thread has ran it's course.
I do love some vinyl, mainly the DBX disc's, very quiet, and high dynamic range. But obviuoslly ost Digital will be the best sound 
There has been some very great vinyl record's made recently, but for the consumer's that didn't keep turntables, discwshers ect,  again it proablly not worth it for the 99%
but still, a really good setup and care vinyl can be played many years.

That said, the only true Digital is LPCM, [PCM} which is what most true Masters are output to. Problem is, about 1 Gb per minute iirc

From there is can go into the Lossless formats, for obvuios reasons, nobody wants a 100Gb album.

Follow up with the AIX Studio's with Mark Walderp, they are in the leading forfront to *true* Hi-Res Digital sound.
As I mentiond before, the title cut WYWH PCM at only 320kbs, was *the* best sound I have ever heard, and it was HUGE file size !

Huge thank you to @qubit for the thread and poll, and to all the great contrubitors !


----------



## qubit (Feb 9, 2015)

I've just come across this article from way back in 1997 that shows all the limitations of vinyl which must be worked around when cutting a record. These are all significant limitations which do not exist from the digital source that the record is often made from, such as, wait for it, a CD.

These include things like reducing the bass and treble to improve stylus tracking and increasing playing time, reducing sibilants to prevent gross distortion and of course the glorious end of side distortion as waveform is compressed in the inner tracks which really mucks up the sound.

So much for records sounding better than a high quality digital source. 

What I found interesting was just what it takes to cut a record master. The sheer amount of power required to cut a record master is 200-400 watts! The tiny coils on the cutting head are helium cooled, but can still reach a staggering 200 degrees centigrade. There's even a circuit breaker to prevent catastrophic destruction! Watching one of these things in action would be so cool. 

http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm


----------

