Vinyl records grow in popularity as CD’s fall

[Cetacea]

An update to a trend that has been underway since the early 2000s.

"In recent years, vinyl records have made a comeback in the music world. Much of the rise in sales can be attributed to the how vinyl sounds. Records or LP’s often have a purer sound because they are recorded in analog format instead of the digital format of CD’s. Analog recordings are one continuous sound whereas digital recordings are samples of sounds placed very close together to mirror a continuous sound. Most people who listen to music can’t tell the difference between analog and digital.

According to an August 2009 WNYC Soundcheck article, record sales increased by 89% in 2008 and saw a 50% increase from 2008 to 2009. Major retailers such as Best Buy even began carrying a small supply of vinyl in their stores because of the dramatic increase. Sam’s Club also sells a turntable that can be plugged into a computer or stereo to play vinyl records. Even more surprising is that while CD sales fell by the way side, vinyl sales continued to rise..."

article:
http://sai.cup.edu/caltimes/index.php/2010/02/02/vinyl-records-grow-in-popularity-as-cds-fall/



Related: Beatles re-mastered catolgue released in vinyl: (farewell, digital compression!)

http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/2009/11/beatles_vinyl_remasters_on_the.html

[tonysam]

1. It's really bizarre, when you think about it.

However, a LOT of people LOVE vinyl, even younger people.

I am not giving up my CDs, however. And I do have a few vinyl records.

Forget the notion downloads will replace the tangible. They won't, at least not for the foreseeable future.

[Cetacea]

3. Size does matter.

I think you are right about having something "tangible" though many really can hear the difference between digital and analogue. I don't consider either "better" than the other, just different.

[tonysam]

7. A lot of people like the analog recordings

And of course those of us who remember the heyday of vinyl, the sixties and seventies, LOVED the cover art.

[Touchdown]

93. But album art in the 80s... not so much.

I mean really?:eyes:

[pepperbear]

122. those are a travesty, but. these are cool....

[TommyO]

132. Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush! A man after my own heart

The Dreaming and Hounds of Love are two of my go-to albums, as are most Peter Gabriel. I was absolutely floored when I was shopping the other day and heard The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway playing in the grocery store.

[pepperbear]

161. WOW! I'd faint if I heard "the lamb lies..." in a grocery store!

[TommyO]

162. I almost did!

It was much better hearing "The Lamb..." than "Should've Been a Cowboy" by Toby Keith at another supermarket the day before.

Of course, I have it on my iPod (yes, compressed digital, obviously not vinyl) so "Lamb" is what got played on the way home.

[ConcernedCanuk]

5. Hey - ya gotta love that "scratch, scratch" as the needle crosses boo-boos from the last party . .

.
.
.


Stairway to Heaven sounds great with all those extra audio sounds - memories - -

"HEY - I remember who f*cked up that album -

great party, man . . " :thumbsup:

:silly:

:smoke:

[Sebastian Doyle]

18. Not to mention the backwards Satanic messages

How the Hell are you supposed to turn a CD backwards?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgtxpRNT-r0

[ConcernedCanuk]

33. There's gotta be an application for that - no?

.
.
.

I'm on limited hydro use here or I'd Google it

Generator costs me about 2 bucks an hour, I'm on welfare -

ergo my posts are sometimes short and abrupt.

[unkachuck]

49. well, there you go....

....if you had a 1920s hand-cranked phonograph and some vinyl, you could easily afford to listen to your tunes and still have money to spare for the internets....

[verges]

71. I would NOT recommend

trying to play vinyl on a hand-craned grammaphone. Those old 78's were shellac! You would truly mess up your vinyl if you tried.

[Leftist Agitator]

67. "I'm on welfare - "

But, but but, YOU'RE IN CANADA!!!!

CANADA!

The country where everyone can go to the doctor without having to pay out of pocket, where the streets are paved in gold and the livestock poops delicious poutine for everyone to eat!

Canadians can't be on welfare. They can't even have such a THING as welfare!

[ConcernedCanuk]

177. "Leftist Agitator" - well chosen nic there . .

.
.
.

Yup - every "legal" Canadian citizen can go to the doctor without paying out of pocket

and can have surgery with no bills attached either

BUT

our streets are not paved in gold

many of them are not paved at all

what was your question??

:freak:

OH

I'll share that "the livestock poops delicious poutine" with our local restaurateurs that MAKE and SELL it

I'm sure they will be amused, and impressed with our southern neigbours rendition , ,

USAmericans never cease to amaze me

sadly, . .

(sigh)

[Viking12]

156. LOL. many wasted nights and many, many bong hits

Deciphering that message as a youth. Youtube has robbed today's youth of that adventure.

[tridim]

27. That's a really good point. I was wondering what was missing from the digital version of Stairway.

Thinking back to when I was a kid, listening to Zeppelin on my Dad's analog stereo system, it's definitely the pops and fuzzy noise during the quiet sections that are missing.

[johnfunk]

23. I have both vinyl and CD -- prefer CD by a large margin, but vinyl's a blast

Vinyl can never sound a s good as the original source (analog tape or digital) due to mechanical distoertions and the physical limits of a mechanical source, and a well-transferred digital copy at the CD standard (44.1k, 16 bits per channel) will sound identical to the analog source for 99 out of 100 people if it's done right (which was not always the case in the early years of digital audio).

I was involved in double-blind digital listening tests two decades ago. I was one of only two people on a panel of 20 who was able to pick out the analog tape original vs. the digital copy, and I sometimes found it difficult to tell the difference. the digital copy sounded just the tiniest bit different -- a hair "brighter," but not perceptibly worse. Now that higher word depths and higher sampling rates are the norm, I believe it would be nearly impossible to discern a difference in a double-blind test.

My present home system for music listening is a mix of high-end and professional electronics -- and it should be noted that I am also an active audio recording producer. For the vinyl and shellac, I have two turntables -- a Technics SL-1200MkV with two arms and a half dozen cartridges which I use mostly for 78s and early mono LPs, and a Priam Maxtor direct drive with two arms which I use mostly mostly for stereo LPs. The tables are hooked to the incredible KAB Mk12 preamp -- not cheap, but better sounding than any tube preamp I've heard, plus it can be set to twelve different playback curves (important for mono LPs and 78s, and, yes, even early stereo LPs) and adjusted for the specific impedance of the playback cartridge. This is hooked through a Kensai switcher box (also hooked to an Otari 8080 open reel deck and a Meridian 508 CD player) to a Crown Macro Reference amp, which feeds a pair of Ohm Walsh 4000 speakers.

[pangaia]

78. I must be one of the 2%

I enjoyed your comments very much.
I must be one of the 2% because I can easily (usually easily) tell the difference. I am 66 so, that tells you something. But I am a classical musician, a percussionist, who also plays a lot of steel pan--calypso. I can guarantee..listening to a CD or an orchestra bears very little resemblance to playing in the middle(or in my case the back) of a symphony orchestra.. nor is it anything like being in the audience. The sound is...TOO clean, too to my ears too sterile,for lack of better terms.
The first time my 15 piece steel band did a recording several years ago,we had to do a CD, just to be practical and sell anything.. I insisted at least on doing it in an analogue studio-- on tape. We tried a session in a digital studio and the sound was.. just not real, much too harsh. So we went across town to and did it on a couple of Scullys or Altecs, I forget which. Scullys I think...

My 'stereo' system is nothing like yours-- an old Thorens turntable, a Marantz amp and a couple of Klipschorns.

[cliffordu]

82. MMMMMMmmmmmm Klipsch....

:headbang:

[upi402]

91. K

horn
:applause:

[mitchtv]

94. 65 here with an onkyo tx8500 /Klipsch heresy

unfortunately my vinyl has lots of clicks. Starting to have trouble with my technics changer any reccomendations?

[Cetacea]

103. Any used Thorens, Dual, AR.

You might find that a good belt-drive deck will cut down on the noise. If you into changers, Dual and Elac Miracord decks are great.

[Romulox]

139. Buy a Nitty Gritty machine instead of a new turntable. Pricey, but excellent.

http://www.nittygrittyinc.com/

[Spike from MN]

142. Excellent suggestion. n/t

[Elwood P Dowd]

153. I use an old VPI HW-16.5 machine.

Dame thing still works after over 20 years.

[johnfunk]

172. Nitty Gritty is still the BEST bargain for cleaning vinyl (and shellac!)

'nuff said.

[johnfunk]

168. I'd go with the Technics SL-1200 == PLUS here's a tip on a huge horn-loaded bargain

KAB sells them plain or with mods
http://kabusa.com/frameset.htm?/
One listener's reaction to the 1200 with a Shure V15-V
http://kabusa.com/1200com1.htm

My experience is pretty much the same

If you prefer horn loading to dynamic drivers, check out

http://hsuresearch.com/products/hb-1.html

Maybe the best under-$1000-a-pair speakers I've heard -- and with shipping they're $340!!

[Elwood P Dowd]

121. I would rather have yours than his.

Klipschorns with Marantz tubes. All you need is to tweak out the Thorens, roll some tubes on the Marantz, and have fun.

[Romulox]

133. Another Klipsch user here--my system cost less than $3k altogether, and vinyl STILL sounds best

OK, maybe $4k...

Klipsch Chorus (recapped; Crites Titanium tweeters installed)
Rythmik audio sub
Kenwood KA-9100 Integrated Amp
Onkyo DX-7555 CD player
KAB modified Technics SL1200MK2 with KAB re-wired tone arm and fluid dampener

Even on this modest system, vinyl offers incomparable mid-range fidelity.

[Spike from MN]

141. That's an interesting story about your band's experience with the digital studio.

That doesn't surprise me. I really hate it when I spend a lot of time chasing down a recent recording on vinyl only to put the needle down on it and immediately discover it sounds like crap because it was recorded in a digital studio. It just sucks all the life out of the music. Kudos to you for going analog with your recording.

I must be one of the 2% also. While digital has seem some pretty big improvements in the past 5 years or so and has closed the gap a bit, no matter what they do, it still has that "digital" sound.

[johnfunk]

171. I'll bet the mic amps for the steel drum were not properly impedance-matched to the board!

Impedance mismatch is the number one source of shrillness. You'd be surprised how few recordists check that.

I've recorded full symphony orchestras in analog and digital, nowadays usually with no more than 4 mics in Linkwitz array (Siggy himself has a terrific page on this -- http://linkwitzlab.com/Recording/Stereo-recording.htm). My current preferred recording setup is four Earthworks SR30 cardioids, the main pair 9 inches apart between a dummy head. I've also done surround recordings, replacing the main pair with Earthworks QTC 50s and vintage Schoeps Blumlein MK8s in figure 8 front-back setting, positioned half an inch from the main pair capsules. Mixing these to a multichannel format creates a "you are there" effect more realistic than any forest-of-mics surround I've heard. M6y mic amps are all Belding H (two of them modified for the Schoeps ribbons), which feed Benchmark A-to-D converters (usually at 24 bit 176.4k), which write directly to a hard drive via a Lynx AES16 sound card.

One big analog-and-tubes proponent conceded that my recordings sound quite good, almost as good as Keith Johnson's, who uses a similarly minimalist setup -- without the dummy head and often with just 2 mics!

[Cetacea]

92. Have you ever tried a good belt-drive deck?

Love my Ohm Walsh speakers!

[johnfunk]

169. I've tried belt drives; they're not as reliable...

... plus the 1200 is a lot quieter than most belt decks, with far better speed stability. Sounds counterintuitive, but that's my experience.

[Ildem09]

89. it actually makes sense

if you want vast sums of music and portability mp3s on the iPod. if you want fidelity LP. CD has no place in the new frontier

[Ohio Metal]

128. I store

my downloads on a SD card in my cell phone. 2 gigs of music on my phone, 8 gigs on my ipod and I can't even fathom how much on my computer. Plus I have a great vinyl collection which I load onto my computer so my records do not deteriorate as quickly as they would if I listened to them all the time. Seems pretty tangible to me. All I have to do is make sure I do mandatory back ups. I used to destroy a cd in a couple months or less, especially if I liked it. This way I get to keep my music pristine forever.

[Kahuna]

2. I still have mine, even though I've transferred most of my

faves to mp3 format.

[madmax]

4. Why is it that whenever

I throw something away - it seems to then have value, either monetary or otherwise. <sigh> Don't ask :cry:

[virgogal]

6. When I sold my house in 1997 I threw away almost 40 years of vinyl

for the city trash collection.

I put them on top of the pile and they were gone in less than an hour.

The ones I regret getting rid of are Benny Goodman's Carnegie Hall Concert and some of the Sinatra Columbia recordings.

[MineralMan]

8. Some old vinyl has value. If you don't know the market, you don't

know whether a particular record is valuable or not. Sometimes, it's the oddest thing that transforms "just another old record" into something worth three figures.

I dug through my old albums and found a Beatle's white album I picked up at a garage sale many years ago. Turns out it was a particularly desirable version of the thing. Got over $200 on eBay for it. I wonder what my old Fugs album is worth. :rofl:

[virgogal]

At the time I didn't have a computer and was unfamiliar with E-Bay. I am also

a purger and extraordinarily lazy about it.

I toss. Period.

Good for you with your album.

The Fugs? (I'm old as dirt)

[MineralMan]

21. The Fugs were the late 60's originators of punk in the US,

in my opinion. Other opinions may differ. I first heard them on a short-lived underground FM station in Southern California. I do not have the original pressing of their first album, though. It was issued by a small record label in NY. Few copies survive, but are worth a pile, despite the atrocious sound quality on the vinyl.

Wikipedia will enlighten you further.

A seminal band (literally), whose first album contained the timeless hit, "Do You Like Boobs a Lot?"

:rofl:

[Cetacea]

25. Some would argue that Floyd flounder Barrett was, but

there's certainly a good case for the Fugs as well.

[MineralMan]

31. Yah, a guy could have a good argument about that. However,

I quit smoking it back in 1974, so I don't think it would hold my attention long enough to work up any steam. :grouphug:

I'm still trying to find the right buyer for my collection of B.B. (Blues Boy) King 78s. From the day when not everyone had a 45 rpm player. They pressed a lot of 78 rpm copies of both rock 'n' roll and blues stuff in the 50s. They aren't in super condition, but I have a dozen of them. Another garage sale find from the 70s. I can't find a price point though, so I'm hanging on to them. Someday, I'll find a comparable grouping so I can get an idea of what to expect.

[Cetacea]

43. Old blues records command the highest prices

The more obscure the artist and the more limited the pressing the better. I'm not sure about King, as he enjoyed commercial success and mass printings.. However, King 78s could be worth tons.

[MineralMan]

125. Well, I checked again on eBay. BB Kink 78's are going for

an average of $10. I looked further, and see that labels continued to produce 78's of rock and blues music well into the 60s.

I did notice that an early 1954 78 release of Bill Haley's "Rock around the Clock" was Buy it Now for about $30, though.

I'm not encouraged.

[Cetacea]

163. Good article on the 78 market (set your own value)

http://www.gracyk.com/value.shtml

[MineralMan]

166. Very interesting.

These days, ebay is probably the best guide to the value of things like that. Collectors have long lists on the site they want to buy, and any auction that comes up gets a notification sent to them. I didn't actually look at closed auctions...just the current ones and Buy it Now prices.

Doesn't matter to me, actually. They're not valuable enough to make an ebay auction worthwhile, really.

[MineralMan]

39. That same station also featured The Seeds and Mothers of Invention

in their playlist on a frequent basis. It was 1965, and rather colored my world view for a short time. I got over it, though. Being 20 is a short-lived phenomenon, it seems.

[virgogal]

29. Thanks for the answer and the great laugh.

[MineralMan]

32. Happy to oblige, ma'am.

[sendero]

64. Others would claim....

.... it was the Stooges or MC5. :)

[Cetacea]

95. Some trivia.

Mc5 opened up for Syd Barrett's short-lived band "Twink" in what turned out to be his last ever performance.

[drm604]

11. I wonder what my old Beatles' albums are worth.

I have a White Album that still has the posters in it. I would find it very hard to part with any of them.

[Cetacea]

16. Depending upon the serial number, up to four figures.

If it's a first issue with the serial numbers on the front it is worth at least a few hundred. (sometimes they sell for less) That figure increases substantially as the serial numbers get lower.

[MineralMan]

28. It depends on many things, and some are really hard to

describe. Serial numbers, the exact image on the cover, down to almost microscopic differences. It's amazing what record collectors care about. The holy grail is an early release White Album that has never been opened, complete with the original cellophane wrapping. People even fake such things.

If you still like the album, keep it. Odds are high that it's not worth more than $100 or so, and could be worth less. That doesn't even keep up with inflation.

[drm604]

50. I can't imagine giving up those albums.

They would have to be worth a fortune and even then I would find it difficult.

[Hissyspit]

47. I kept collecting U2 on vinyl instead of buying the CDs.

You can see what 'Achtung Baby' and 'Zooropa' are going for on amazon.com. :)

[Elwood P Dowd]

9. I prefer the sound of vinyl, but it takes some money

along with the necessary setup knowledge to beat digital. You can't just buy a cheap $300.00 turntable, throw an LP on it and expect miracles. Still have over 500 LPs collected over the past 50 years, along with about 300 CDs and probably a thousand or so songs on my laptop and iPod Touch. At one time I had 3,000 LPs, but dumped tons of them I never listened to anymore on eBay and Audiogon.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

12. We have one good one in our collection.

I have lots of vinyl from the 60s and the 70s. Don't know if they are worth a lot of money.

DH has a copy of the Butcher Cover (he steamed off the replacement cover). He sez he bought it for two dollars at a record store in the OSU student union building.

Apparently they are worth a fortune if they are NOT steamed, but that's no fun. :shrug:

[Elwood P Dowd]

15. The Beatles Butcher LP is one I always wanted but could never afford.

Certain ones are worth a small fortune on eBay. The most I ever got for a record on eBay was $600.00.

[begin_within]

184. I could have bought 2 of them in 1981 for $100 for both.

Ones that had the new cover photo pasted over them and were not peeled. Oh well.

[Cetacea]

13. True. Better to buy a good vintage TT

and a good cartridge. To buy a new turntable at that price point is a bit of a waste.
The advantage now is that for many of us dropping a fortune on a good setup back in the day wasn't possible. Now there is a huge backlog of excellent used hardware.

[Elwood P Dowd]

17. My table cost $3,000 back in the 1990s. I couldn't afford it today though.

The best old tables to buy are from Thorens, AR, Ariston, Rega, and certain Dual models.

Edit to add: That is a short list for affordable turntables. The high end lines (still expensive) would include Linn, Clearaudio, VPI, Rega, Roxan, Pink Triangle, and Nottingham.

[Cetacea]

22. Used Ar and Thorens start at about $200 sans cart. on ebay

The old direct drive Duals as well. Of course there are new "decks" that sell as high as $70,000 !

[Elwood P Dowd]

30. I have a friend that owns a Clearaudio table that cost over $20,000 when you include

the moving coil cartridge, phono preamp, and special base. He also makes about 20 times what I make.

[Cetacea]

35. Jeez.

Have you heard it? I wonder if it becomes a matter of diminishing audio returns after you hit the 2k mark?

[Elwood P Dowd]

37. The diminishing returns for turntables is about $2,500.00. After the VPI Classic,

you're paying thousands of dollars for that last 1-2% of detail or refinement. Now when you add in the moving coil cartridge and phono preamp, you up it to probably $5,000.

[Cetacea]

38. Ah. Thanks.

[Spike from MN]

136. I'd actually put that a lot higher but then again, I'm really picky. ;)

I would have pegged it at about $10,000. Add a decent cartridge ($2k-$3k) and a phono pre ($6000 for the ARC PH7 or $12,000 for the ARC Ref Phono 2 which I have yet to hear because my the local audio dealer STILL doesn't have one in) and you're looking at a pretty good chunk of change.

Anyway, I could be wrong but that's my take on it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

148. I use to own ARC stuff back in the 1970s and 1980s.

Remember the old SP3 pre amp and D75 power amp? Can't afford it anymore, but wish I could.

[Spike from MN]

155. I always hear people talking about the classic ARC stuff.

I don't remember the models you listed as that was probably a bit before my time. Sorry. ;) But the old ARC stuff is very highly regarded. Some prefer it to the newer models as it has the old gear has that classic "tubey" sound. Have you heard the Ref 5 preamp? I thought the Ref 3 sounded fantastic but the Ref 5 walks all over it. Amazing.

I can't afford the ARC gear either. Well, at least not new anyway. I did pick up a CD7 used and I'm really happy with it (for digital). Next up I'd like to grab a used PH7 at some point. And then it's on to the Ref 5...many years from now. ;)

[Elwood P Dowd]

157. I haven't heard any of their gear the past few years.

It moved up and out of my price range years ago, but Bill Johnson was a great guy and built fantastic stuff. He recently sold the company I believe, but I don't know the new owners.

[Elwood P Dowd]

160. Since you're from Minnesota and know about ARC, what about Magnepan?

How is Jim Winey doing these days. Also, do you remember Bob Fulton from the FMI days in the 1970s and 1980s. Some really great sounding high end audio came from up there back in the day.

[Spike from MN]

130. The Clearaudio Statement goes for $125,000.

At least, that was the price back in about 2006. It could very well be higher these days. I believe Continuum and a couple of others also have models in that same price range.

I haven't heard the Statement but I've never really cared for the sound of the Clearaudio 'tables that I've heard. The sound always seemed to have a whitish haze to it. As always, YMMV.

Now if you want to get into the real spendy stuff, the latest Absolute Sound has their CES report and there was a pair of speakers that was priced at $375,000. Almost makes the Statement seem downright affordable in comparison.

Edited to add: I just checked and the Statement goes for $150,000 these days. I *thought* that was the new price but it wasn't turning up in earlier searches.

[Spike from MN]

144. The differences can be heard even on the cheaper systems.

About 12-15 years ago or so, a bunch of us were at a friend's house partying, playing cards, and listening to music. Someone wanted to hear something but the host only had it on vinyl, not CD. They wanted to hear it badly enough that the host moved the pile of junk that had accumulated on the top of the dust cover and put the record on the 'table. The difference wasn't subtle. Every person there agreed the vinyl sounded better than CD. They all knew I had been saying this for years but none of them believed me until then. They had to hear it with their own ears.

The stereo this was played on was your typical mass-market gear that you get at Best Buy. The 'table was probably about $100 or $200 new and hadn't been used for years. The CD player, receiver and speakers were all in about that same price range. Again, this was years ago and digital has made a lot of advancements in that time so the same comparison might not hold up today (e.g., comparing a $200 CD player to a $200 'table) but it did back then.

[madrchsod]

10. vinyl rules.....!

[DefenseLawyer]

14. It's harder to roll one on a CD case n/t

[L0oniX]

26. Can't beat that album sized rolling paper either.

Cheech Chong Big Bambu originally contained a giant rolling paper with the record.

[greyl]

97. I've got that one.

An old lost friend deserves the thanks for that paper not getting used.

[HuckleB]

19. It's still a niche market.

It's hard to see how it's going to really make a true "comeback." The sales are fun, and the vinyl is cool, but note that the numbers presented are all percentages.

[Sebastian Doyle]

20. Now if only they made home vinyl "burners"

All those bootlegs that I've downloaded online still need to be burned to disc.

[Ohio Metal]

129. You can make your own

http://www.instructables.com/community/Homemade-Vinyl-Record-Cutting/

[necso]

24. A buddy of mine

once played for me two versions of the same song (by the same group: "Dust in the Wind", perhaps, or something (very) roughly of that time), both from vinyl, but one from an analog master and one from a digital (or so he said).

There was no question that the analog-master version sounded better. (However, that was his objective -- and these recordings were old.)

Anyway, it's largely lost on me; I'm just not that demanding in these matters. And without mp3's (or something of equivalent (actual) utility, ease-of-use), I'd be (largely) without music.

[4lbs]

34. That article just contradicted itself.

First it says vinyl has a purer sound because it's analog, instead of digital like CD. Then it says most people can't tell the difference between analog and digital.

Then why go to vinyl if they can't tell the difference? Why? So they can hear the static, pops, clicks, and scratches of vinyl?

Yay!

No, the problems with CDs the last 10 years isn't in the digital technology, but because of something called the "loudness war", where the audio is dynamically compressed beyond belief. When you examine the sound under a frequency graph, it looks like a big brick wall of sound, instead of nice sound waves.

Once again, that has nothing to do with the CD format, but because of audio engineers compressing the audio so people won't have to use their volume controls. Stupid.

CDs released in the early 1990s sound beautiful. The full 96 dB range is usually present. The music has time to breathe. You hear full attack-decay-sustain-release. Instruments sound at different volumes and there is good stereo separation. There is also almost no clipping.

However, take most any commercial CD released in the last decade. You have, at best, a 40 dB range because of the compression. You hear only instant attack and sustain. There is no decay or release between notes. Everything is mashed together. All the instruments sound at the same extremely loud volume. Stereo separation is much less and much of the music sounds like it's coming from directly in front of you. There is also a good deal of clipping because of the dynamic compression.

Note that dynamic compression isn't the same as lossy compressing the music to MP3, WMA, or AAC format. That's a different beast altogether.

Go back to the early 1990s way of mastering the music to put on CDs, and the enjoyment will return. However, that will mean that yes, you may have to crank up the volume past 33% on your iPods, car and home stereos. You know, like people did back then.

A current CD released last year, with my home A/V receiver I don't have to put the volume higher than 50 (out of 100). However, with a CD released in 1992, the volume is placed at 80, and I get the full dynamic range and the music sounds terrific.

[Elwood P Dowd]

40. My records have no scratches, pops, ticks, or static.

I've always taken extreme care of them over the years and played them on high end vinyl rigs. Now some I purchased in the 1950s and 1960s had to be replaced because that was before I learned how to take care of them.

[Cetacea]

41. Here is a much better article from NYT

http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html?res=9901EFDE1431F934A35756C0A96E958260

[Elwood P Dowd]

45. Nice article.

I own some of the products mentioned, including the record cleaning machine.

[HuckleB]

51. That article is from 12 years ago.

In other words, what we have here is a niche market for collectors that bored "journalists" like to hype once in a while.

[Elwood P Dowd]

57. Damn, I just realized I was a collector in a so called "niche market".

Strange, I don't know a single vinyl person who is a collector. They all listen to vinyl because of the sound quality. They also all own CD players, computers, and iPods like me. When they want to listen seriously, they fire up the vinyl rig.

[HuckleB]

60. Strange, but that claim doesn't match my experience.

[Elwood P Dowd]

62. I retired after 35 years in the audio business, so I say you are dead wrong!

You have no clue what you are talking about.

[HuckleB]

65. I don't care what you claim to have done with your working life.

I'm not a fool, and I do know what I'm talking about.

Keep trying to push the fundamentalism.

[Elwood P Dowd]

68. How old are you? 18 maybe?

Fundamentalism? Where did that come from? Have you ever set down an listened to a Linn Sondek turntable compared to a Sony CD player spinning the same recording? I don't think so. For 35 years,I've been involved in the very business you claim to know all about, yet you haven't spent one minute working in that business.

[HuckleB]

70. You're sounding a lot like an 18 year old.

Read your posts. Their quite ludicrous, illogical, presumptuous and fundamentalist.

[Spike from MN]

143. That's my experience too.

If I'm working around the house, I use my music server. If I'm on my laptop, I generally spin CDs. But when I want to REALLY listen to music, out comes the vinyl.

[Cetacea]

58. And sales of Lps and record players have only increased

Now one can by a new (not recommended) turntable at Radio Shack, Best Buy, etc...

It's hardly a niche when the very artists themselves prefer it as well as new artists and their fans. It's also a recession friendly form of art/entertainment.

"They tricked our ears but our hearts were sad.". Neil Young on CDs verus vinyl

[HuckleB]

59. And...

... they're taking over, right?

:rofl:

[Elwood P Dowd]

61. They're taking over with people who have taste in high end audio reproduction.

With people like you, it's strictly MP3 players and Wal Mart $39.00 DVD players.

[HuckleB]

63. You have no idea about me, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Still... keep letting yourself be conned into thinking it's more than it is.

LOL!

[Turborama]

44. I'm a DJ who uses both vinyl and MP3s and have found a really good piece of software for this prob

In the past I had a lot of problems with the volume levels and dBs of MP3 tracks and albums I've been collecting so I did some research and found this excellent small (and free) program that balances everything out.

http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/

[4lbs]

74. Yeah, I know about replaygaining, but it doesn't help restore the lost dynamic range from the

dynamic compression process.

For example, here's what I'm talking about.


Here's a song with good dynamic range, although the peaks are a little high in one or two spots. Still, it's a very good representation of good mastering.





See the beautiful peaks and valleys? That's how full dynamic range is supposed to look under such a graph.




Now, here's a song that has been subjected to huge amounts of dynamic compression.



See the difference? It's a virtual wall of sound assaulting the human ear. Almost no distinguishment between the silent and loud passages, because everything has been mashed together so there is no silent part of the music to give time for the music and listener to "breathe".

The second song will likely sound like crap because of that dynamic compression. Most commercial music CDs produced in the U.S. in the last 10 years will look like the second graph. In the first half of the 1990s though, they looked like the first graph.

Once this is done, there is no way to get it back to looking like the first one, unless you have the unadulterated master before dynamic compression was applied.

[HuckleB]

75. +1

[Incitatus]

36. x

[corpseratemedia]

42. my albums are in excellent shape but my cds

they just flllyyy out of my hands, or i snap them the wrong way into their little plastic thingy and ...crack..or they get screwed up getting played in the car- just about all of mine are f'd up.

i do also miss the album art ...good music is worth the larger visual concept

[ConcernedCanuk]

46. Remeber "Record PLAYERS"??

.
.
.

Stack 10 45's on top

Watch them drop on a spinning record to play the next one -

gives audiophiles the shiver to think of it - but back then . .

waiting for the #1 45 to come out -

go pay the one buck or whatever -

invite your friends over to listen to the #1 song over and over and over

THEN stack up 5 or 10 on the changer, then relax while they dropped and slip/destroyed each other as they played through their brand new scratches . . .

dem waz da daze . .

:dunce:

[Johonny]

48. I think it's a sign of prestige rather than "sound" quality

they album art is clearer and they just look better as knickknacks in a room than a stack of CDs. I was wondering if their sales would continue to increase after the economic meltdown.

[Cetacea]

52. Used records can be purchased for as little as a quarter

if one is fortunate enough to have a Goodwill or another thrift store in the area. Also there are still people just looking to give away their record collections. After the initial turntable purchase it is a recession friendly past time. (quality, used turn tables can be had for as little as $50 on ebay)

[Elwood P Dowd]

54. Good point. That reminds me of an old friend

who was divorced, and the wife kept the stereo and all the music. He loved music but had nothing but an old boom box. I found him a 1970s Dual 1228 turntable and 200 LPs for 50 bucks at a yard sale. Picked up a Harman Kardon receiver at the pawn shop for about the same price. Radio Shack had some speakers for 1/2 price at $99.95 a pair, so for $200 he not only had a decent music system, he had over 1,500 songs to play along with AM/FM radio.

[Johonny]

56. I agree

Which is why sound quality arguments (see below post) don't ring true to me. I could (did) buy tons of albums in used stores and second hand stores. So it seems to me it can't explain why the sudden uptick in sales. I mean CDs and Vinyl have been around for a long time. Why suddenly an uptick now if quality was a driver? I saw a story on this last year. The argument then was owning vinyl had become "cool" again. It would be interesting to see if the trend continues or as the fad fades (probably due to peoples disposable income going down). If I had to guess, I wouldn't invest in vinyl record stocks :) But I grant I could be wrong. Only time will tell for sure.

The reason for this is most people can't tell the difference however many young people only have songs digitally. But it is kinda cool to have that album. I mean the art work on those old ones is really cool and albums show it way better than CDs. They frame better and once again I point out it is prestigious to own old technology. I point out as a poor graduate student I grew to appreciate second hand stores and used stores. Before that I bought new. Which says new people getting into the album thing seem to be buying new rather than grabbing them old. Which screams having disposable income.

[HuckleB]

66. +1

[Elwood P Dowd]

53. You're wrong.

LPs on high end turntables sound more musical and more like live musicians performing in real space. I own a very expensive turntable and hundreds of LPs, yet other than a couple of audiophiles, most people never even give it a second glance. The ones that hear it compared to my CD player usually leave in a state of shock. The most commonly used saying is, "I don't understand. How can old records sound that much better"? Most have never heard a vinyl rig that was set up properly and playing clean, noise-free records. They sure as hell haven't heard all the remastered 180 and 200 gram LPs that have come out recently.

I own hundreds of CDs and have over a thousand songs on my laptop and iPod, but when I want to listen critically, the turntable is turned on and the lights are turned out.

[HuckleB]

69. You are disproving yourself as you go, which is hilarious.

You try to push the increase in sales as something related to sound quality, and then you finally acknowledge just how expensive the EQUIPMENT must be to make that sound quality matter. In other words, yes, it's a niche market, and, for most people, it's about the cool, not the sound.

[Elwood P Dowd]

72. I don't know one single person who is buying turntables and vinyl because it is cool.

There may be a few college kids doing it, but I have not met them. Now I just retired in 2009, so maybe you have discovered something I missed from 1974 to 2009. Why do you want to argue about a business you never worked in and know absolutely nothing about?

[HuckleB]

73. ROTFLMAO!

Then you don't know many people who buy vinyl.

[Elwood P Dowd]

79. I know tons of them, and they are professionals, musicians, doctors, teachers,

business owners, and such. I have sold turntables and vinyl both at the brick and mortar level and on sites like eBay in recent years. I just don't meet anyone who is spending large amounts of money for something that looks cool. They are all buying it for the music and sound quality. You are saying they are only buying it because it's cool. That simply is not true with the thousands of customers I've dealt with the past few years. You must hang around with people who have more money than sense, or you are totally full of shit. I suspect the latter.

[HuckleB]

83. Sure, you do.

You keep telling yourself that. Your own posts contradict your theory on this, but you're gonna keep pushing the BS no matter what. Got it.

ROTLFMAO!!!

[Elwood P Dowd]

86. Tell me again, how many years experience do you have in this business?

The answer is a big, fat zero but tell me anyway.

[HuckleB]

101. In the "business."

ROTLFMAO!

Tell me again how much you actually know about music?

The answer is a big, fat zero!!!!!

Thanks for cracking me up with your lack of logic and unsupported BS.

[Cetacea]

87. Here is a story about Pete Townshend "acting cool"

http://origamimusic.blogspot.com/2009/03/not-open-yet-pete-townsend.html

I don't know of any professional artists who don't prefer vinyl. Well, maybe Brittany Spears and others of her ilk.

Then again, I don't consider her an artist...

Still, it really comes down to personal preference. Thanks for your professional opinion.

[HuckleB]

102. Thanks for proving half of what your pal tried to push as wrong.

Of course, he disproved himself by going back and forth between arguments, as he argued against himself most of the time.

And, uh, you don't known any professional artists, so cut the crap.

BTW, Pete Townsend can't hear a dang thing!

:rofl:

[Cetacea]

106. What's your major malfunction?

lol. What ever happened to discussion? Additionally, you don't know who or what I know. That, I know. The article is about a trend, about something that is not obsolete. You can argue which medium is better until your ears turn white. It doesn't matter.

[HuckleB]

108. If you or your pal cared about discussion, you would have offered actual responses...

... to the actual content of the posts offered.

You've just gone juvenile goofball. It's an old repeat, and no one who actually has been around for more than a couple years is buying.

[Elwood P Dowd]

110. As Barney Fife said about Earnest T. Bass.....

He's a nut! Now he thinks he is an expert on various LP pressings he has never heard. He thinks it's all about the album cover. Next thing you know, he will say people buy certain CDs because they have better looking plastic boxes.

[HuckleB]

113. And more ludicrous projections is all you can offer.

Seriously, get out of the house once in a while. It will do you some good.

[Forkboy]

138. HuckleB just likes to argue.

Good for laughs, not much else. :)

[Amerigo Vespucci]

55. At the end of their mainstream life cycle, vinyl albums were POORLY produced

As the emphasis switched to CDs, quality control standards went out the window. Pits, scratches, warps...

..and today I got an email from Amazon hawking the "180 Gram Vinyl" version of Neil Young's latest, "Dreamin' Man Live '92," for $23.73.

Poorly manufactured vinyl will never find its way back into the mainstream. "Audiophile" vinyl will always have a home.

:toast:

[KharmaTrain]

76. RCA's PlexiDisc...

:puke: :rofl:

Frank Zappa demanded his albums be pressed on Masterdisk. I have an immaculate copy of Sheik Yerbouti that still kicks. I was fortunate that I worked in radio stations and got my hands on a lot of vinyl. The first pressings were always on the best stuff...sent out to radio stations and record pluggers...then the vinyl would get cheaper with each printing.

Glad to see vinyl has made a comeback and that I saved all of mine. Anyone know the value of a Skynyrd Street Survivors LP with the original cover??

[Amerigo Vespucci]

77. $30 to $114 on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000LH491S/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The additional collectors item in that one is the red insert listing dates for the upcoming tour.

I once owned this, sold it off a while back with the majority of my vinyl collection. I had to move three times in four years (apartment sold to condo developers, townhouse owner wanted to move back into her home after only renting to me for a year, second townhouse owner sold the place out from under me after two years) and I got tired of packing them and paying movers to haul them all over Silicon Valley.

I had everything. EVERYTHING. Primarily rock and roll, but all of the rock and roll that mattered. I ended up buying most of what I cared about on CDs, over a period of a years, so I didn't really give anything up that I cared about (other than some magnificent 12" x 12" album artwork...THAT I miss).

:toast:

[JCMach1]

81. I still have some audiophile... I think they called them 'superdiscs'

All my early Peter Gabriel is on Superdisc.

[HuckleB]

84. Yup.

Back then... though even then the artwork was what pushed sales for the most part, and it was about collecting stuff.

[Elwood P Dowd]

90. Here you are full of it again.

Compare the Blood, Sweat, & Tears SuperDisk to the original Columbia. There is no comparison. The original Columbia is thin, veiled, and two-dimensional compared to the remastered version. This is true with many of the remastered recordings from that era. There were a few that came out worse than the original pressings, but were still better than the later pressings most people would buy. Paying an extra $8.00 for something that was dramatically better was the next best thing to buying a mint original pressing.

[HuckleB]

100. Blah. Blah. Blah.

You're not even addressing the actual content of my post.

ROTLFMAO!

[Elwood P Dowd]

105. I did address your content. You said it was about collecting, when in fact

those recordings were often dramatically better sounding than the originals. Again, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. You never once compared the pressings and are just pulling shit out of your ass. I compared several of those to the originals. How about you?

[HuckleB]

107. Again, the reason people bought them was about collecting.

The fact that they sound better is not an issue with that.

Hello? Really. Is anyone home at all?

[Elwood P Dowd]

116. Again, you're talking about something you know nothing about.

How many of those LPs have you purchased? How many have you compared to the original? The answer again is a BIG FAT ZERO! Have you heard the original Stevie Ray "In Step" on Epic compared to the 180 gram remaster from a few years ago? Then did you compare that to Epic CD that sounded even more crappy than the original LP pressing? That remaster was not expensive, and it certainly is not collectible. People buy it for the sound quality just like they buy the Phoebe Snow Japanese pressing for a couple of bucks more than the original Shelter.

[HuckleB]

119. I purchased plenty in my day.

And I know why others purchased them. Your constant "you don't know what you're talking about" goofiness only shows your ludicrous ignorance. You want to be an expert about something. Sorry, but you're not. You have opinions, and a little bit of knowledge, enough to make you dangerous, if there was any danger to be had. That's all you got.

Hasta.

[Elwood P Dowd]

120. I have posted plenty of examples of equipment and recordings in this thread.

You have posted nothing other than bullshit. You haven't mentioned one single piece of equipment or one single recording as example to any of the posts, so I say you are full of shit.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

85. I had original and Super-Disc copies of "Double Fantasy"...

:toast:

[Cetacea]

98. "Double Fantasy" sounds great on vinyl...

[JCMach1]

111. My Fisher player back in the states still works great too!

I got it in 1986...

[Echo In Light]

159. I routinely buy 180/200 gram vinyl from tiny, unknown labels that put out righteous high grade...

... product. In the marginal niche of underground metal, those labels and distros understand that if they put out shoddy records, they won't sell. Word of mouth an all. I usually plunk down anywhere from $10 - $20 per album, give or take, depending upon what it is, type of vinyl, color, number of pressings, etc

[cliffordu]

80. Vinyl rules.

My own digital recordings sound brittle into the computer...Into tape machines, not so much...But tape is very noisy......

I'd like to record directly to vinyl disc...but don't have the chops....or the brazillian dollars to spend....

[Cetacea]

88. A lot of artists, young and old, want to record in analogue.

It's become so cost prohibitive. However if the vinyl surge continues it may help drive the costs down.

[onenote]

96. the vinyl "surge" is more like a vinyl wavelet.

Vinyl still represents less than 1 percent of recorded music sales and digital downloads are growing much faster. I still have all of my vinyl dating back to the 60s, but I am quite certain vinyl is and will remain a very limited niche product.

[HuckleB]

109. Exactly.

[Touchdown]

99. Well one thing's for sure, if anybody goes back to VHS...

They need their head examined!:puke:

[JCMach1]

112. Difference there is just plain quality... Even BetaMax was better!

[Touchdown]

114. I know. I was making a joke.

VHS was never the "original format" either. The original format was 35mm film, sometimes 70mm.

[JCMach1]

124. Yeah I remember those HUGE cassettes that would make like 4 VHS tapes

in the late 1970's and early 1980's

[Touchdown]

104. Bill Maher's New Rule way back in 2005...

New Rule: Stop telling me that vinyl records sound warmer than CDs. I was alive in the '70s, you dip-shit hipsters. I know what vinyl sounds like. Scratchy. And when your friend throws you the bong and it hits the tone arm, your Foghat record is ruined, man! Plus, when you've got a chick over and you're getting your groove on, every 20 minutes, you've got get up out of the beanbag chair and flip over the Ray Stevens album.

[Cetacea]

115. LOL. I guess it's a subject that seems to raise a lot of people's hackles

Personally, I don't get the defensiveness. The more medium choices the better!

[Elwood P Dowd]

117. Bill was too cheap to buy a decent turntable and too stoned to clean his records.

Basically, he is full of shit on this subject.

[Touchdown]

118. Oh' lighten up.

He's reliving his boyhood more than he's criticizing audiophiles.

Besides, I don't think any turntable, no matter how expensive, can make Foghat ever sound good.;)

[Echo In Light]

147. I take offense at that remark ...

...I'm often stoned to the bejeebus belt, yet still manage to D4 mine regularly :smoke:

[jmowreader]

179. 90 percent of America is too cheap to buy a decent turntable

When I was at Fort Campbell in the early 1980s I bought a Thorens TD-126 turntable. I put a Shure V15 cartridge in it, and (until the movers "lost" my turntable on the way back from Korea) had a most respectable turntable system. It especially liked the records you could buy downtown in Korea.

But the thing is, to a turntable purist that would probably be considered low-grade equipment. OMG he has a Shure on it! Moving-MAGNET cartridges? Burn the room!

[Echo In Light]

123. I never really stopped buying LPs, & do so every month

The few web sources for labels/distros, domestic and abroad, for underground metal/acid rock put out high grade product, and have for many yrs. I've got a couple old MCS turntables that are used daily :)

[bigtree]

126. needles are a pain to find, and expensive

[RedCloud]

127. What about those pesky scratches in all formats?

[Fumesucker]

131. Well, I think we have found another subject to add to the "flame war" category..

Along with Olive Garden, breast feeding, circumcision, guns, Israel Palestine and so on..

:evilgrin:

[Orsino]

134. I only prefer vinyl's covers.

CDs sound far better to me.

[Mari333]

135. I still have my vinyls from the 60s

my sons just oooo and ahhhh and say 'classic!'

I kept my husband's reel to reel tapes too. he seemed to like Led Zeppelin and the Who and the Moody Blues a lot.

[Romulox]

137. I own dozens of albums on both CD AND Vinyl. There's a difference!

It's not always a "better or worse" thing. But the vinyl almost always has more realistic midrange.

All that said I am not paying for another set of Beatles remasters! I bought the mono CDs, and I'm done with the whole thing!

[Echo In Light]

145. The warm analog of vinyl is better for guitar heavy sounds, imo

[Romulox]

151. It's better for wuss-rock too. Trust me on this.

:rofl:

[Echo In Light]

154. lol..well, my extensive LP collection is all underground metal/acid rock spanning 5 decades

... going back to metal's prototypical era of the late 60s - mid 70s; Randy Holden, Blue Cheer, Cream, Hendrix, Sabbath, etc. In fact I really don't have any non heavy guitar laden music on vinyl, come to think of it...

[Romulox]

158. Oh, it can be guitar laden and still be wuss rock!

My old lady don't see a lot of love
But my guitar
I give it all it can get
So if the moment ain't right
I'll party all night
Call me crazy but I ain't gonna quit

:headbang:

[Forkboy]

140. Sorry, vinyl sounds great, but I don't have the room.

If I were to replace all my CDs with vinyl I'd have no where to sit, seriously. As it is, I have CDs all over the place. You can't turn around without seeing a pile or a rack of them. If 1400 CDs is a problem then 1400 albums would be a nightmare! :)

I used to have milk crates chock full of albums, but I moved 32 times in my first 37 years, and lugging those things around was just getting to be too much. I finally sold some, gave some away and threw some out.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

146. Add a good tube amp to the mix and it's bliss.

The turntable and needle is also important- damn! I just flashed back about 30 years!

[snooper2]

149. This is the last resting stop for vinyl

Mother-in-law got my wife one for Christmas, then brought a couple boxes of her old records over to be recorded to CD "when she has time"... :rofl:

[Elwood P Dowd]

150. That's about the worse sounding turntable in world.

I feel sorry for you :crazy:

[snooper2]

152. that's not the exact brand..

just converts it to digital...

[Silent3]

164. I wish this "analog is purer" meme would die.

If you like the way LPs sound better than CDs, fine. It's not because the sound is purer, however, it's because of pleasing distortions, not greater accuracy or fidelity.

[Silent3]

165. One audio test I wish someone would run, if it hasn't been done already.

Take an "audiophile" LP, one of those LPs that's been pressed in the finest virgin vinyl, recorded using the finest analog equipment, play it back on an expensive audiophile turntable through an expensive tube preamp... then digitize the output from the turntable and burn it onto a CD. You'd need to make sure the digital equipment doesn't have any obvious measurable flaws, but it shouldn't have to be crazy expensive audiophile stuff.

Then do a carefully volume matched double-blind A/B comparison between the actual vinyl and the CD of the vinyl. I sincerely doubt anyone will be able to tell the original from the copy, unless perhaps the vinyl gets damaged along the way after digitizing it and has scratches or dust that don't show up on the CD.

I'm confident that this will show that the much ballyhooed (by some people) special quality and supposed accuracy of LPs is really euphonic distortion... that is, distortion that sounds good, and not any supposed extra accuracy of "continuous analog" vs. digital spouted by people who don't understand Nyquist theorem. Further, this should demonstrate that CDs won't lose any of the "magic" that some people think they hear from LPs, that the supposedly evil process of turning music into numbers won't steal the music's soul.

[ddeclue]

167. Vinyl snobs are out of their minds...SNR on vinyl is a joke, the dynamic range is very limited and

the frequency response is pathetic on vinyl. CD's offer 95 dB SNR, 20 Hz to 22kHz frequency response and are much harder to damage/degrade than vinyl.

The only thing better than CD is SA-CD or something digital with a higher digitization rate and more bits of resolution but I truly doubt that any normal person could hear the difference - I have extraordinarily good high frequency hearing and a very high degree of ability to hear small differences in pitch and volume that most people do not have and I would never go back to vinyl. My blue ray player can play the higher quality SA-CD's but it just isn't worth the extra money they cost. CD's are already quite excellent and with older recordings originally mastered in analog format you can hear the tape hiss from the original masters on the CD as the tracks cut in and out.

[HughMoran]

170. Yeah, the CD's just don't capture the 'air' of the higher frequencies/harmonics

Even though it can technically produce an accurate 20kHz sine wave, there are subtle ambient spacial cues that are lost with CDs. I've done the comparison and it's noticeable. In the end though, I've caved to the convenience of playing CDs - when I 'play' music at all. My TV lets me play youtube videos which gives both visuals and decent sound in some cases.

[Silent3]

173. Exactly what are these "subtle ambient spacial cues"?

Where in the audio spectrum do they lie? Where in the phase differences between left and right channels? Or is it just some mystical magic "unknown to science" that somehow only survives through an analog recording/playback chain?

LPs certainly can sound very different than CDs, and pleasantly so with some music and to some ears, but everything points to that being caused by euphonic distortion. Any "subtle ambient spacial cues" you think are present in LPs and missing in CDs are almost certainly something added along the way in the analog recording/playback chain that didn't exist in the original live signal, even if you think the addition sounds more realistic, not something in the original signal that got lost by the CD recording or playback process.

[HughMoran]

175. I've gone back and forth on the 'euphonic distortion' argument

I'm also an engineer, so I am not denying the 'math' of the Nyquist theorem. Funny thing though, the smartest 'math' people I've ever met at the National Instruments high end group will describe audible differences in op-amps and digital reproduction techniques that technically shouldn't exist. I'm not a big LP person, but there are significant differences between older CD players and CDs and 'improved' players & discs made with better op-amps and DACs. How can this be if the 'specs' say that one is as good as the other in the audible spectrum? BTW, I realize the uselessness of arguing with the "it can't be real' people versus the 'I can hear it' people, so feel free to argue some more or realize that we're never going to agree on this topic. The differences aren't as 'knock your socks off' as different sampling/compression settings of MP3's, but there are certainly subtle differences between certain of the early ADCs used to make early CDs and current CDs and HDCDs; in your view, there should be no difference as Nyquist says all the info is 'there'. Why would higher sampling and error correction techniques have been invented if the basic 'theory' produced a perfect 20kHz sine wave?

[Silent3]

176. There's nothing inherent in digital technology that ensures good implementation...

...so it's not like I'm saying digital automatically means perfect. For example, while it's seldom anywhere near large enough an effect to make a big difference, jitter is one way that sampling can introduce distortion that didn't get much thought in early digital designs.

For the math of the Nyquist theorem to apply, all signal content above half the sampling rate has to be removed first. That's actually not all that easy to do, especially without introducing a lot of phase shift. Therein lies one answer to the question you asked about why higher sampling rates can make sense: it allows for greater tolerance in filtering.

But higher sampling rates and bit rate can be superfluous marketing BS too. Just because people can be convinced to buy a thing doesn't mean its benefits are significant or even real. If things like HDCD sound better than regular CDs, it can often be simply because the types of material put onto HDCD are handled with greater care through the whole recording process.

Further, just because something like CDs can be improved upon hardly proves that whatever gains are made are a matter of gaining positive qualities that analog technology somehow already had. I get so tired of the silly idea being repeated that because analog waveforms are continuous that somehow means they have "more information" -- some idiots even being so bold as to say INFINITE!!! information. Frequency response and noise impose pretty much the same (dare I say "analogous"?) limits on the information carrying capacity of an analogy signal as sample rate and sample resolution do for digital signals.

[HughMoran]

178. Yeah, getting rid of the brick-wall filter using higher sampling rates/digital filtering has helped

Also, it would be difficult to argue that a digitally sampled master tape can sound better than the original, though this has improved significantly over the years. In general though, I think we understand each other - I used to roll my eyes something fierce when my old room mate would put green magic marker on my CDs :eyes:

[dana_b]

174. In honor of vinyl, here is Pearl Jam's

"Spin The Black Circle"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ0w0HwoMxQ

I still have all of my old vinyl records except for those I lost in a fire.

[Cetacea]

180. Pearl Jam is on SNL, 3/13

[RedCappedBandit]

181. I wonder if, when put to the test, anyone can consistently tell the difference

I once watched a documentary with some "professionals" who got it wrong half the time.

[Cetacea]

183. The best groups should include teenage girls

They have the best hearing. Then I'd include musicians, engineers, and casual listeners. But again, I think the differences are mostly subtle and a matter of personal preference. The "which is better" argument has been going on for decades.

[saltpoint]

182. "Git out ol' Dan's records..."

:toast:

[begin_within]

185. Records sound warmer and more "live" to me than CDs do.