A really good article about vinyl, digital files and cd's

Based upon the individual and what most people are willing to do, most people aren’t willing to do much and always look for the methods that take the least involvement. Then when they finish plugging stuff in they want to be finished and just push a button or lower a cartridge. The amount of people willing to do more to get more are on sites like this one and the rest just push a convenient button when they are in the mood and the sound for them doesn’t have to be that great. I think that audiophiles have a tendency to get mixed up with what the general public wants. Most of the vinyl sales are based upon the socially defined....monkey see, monkey do. Then digital is the most popular umong the more capable of the younger generations. But anything can be improved to sound even better so it’s not even about the medium, it’s about what a person is willing to do with any medium or even their lives. It’s like what you want to drive, the best new Ford Mustang or a 1971 Ford Mustang with a 428 SOHC.....
 
Wow, and I thought speaker wire threads got people stirred up! The reality for me is that my music collection has way too much Mono and Stereo vinyl, and tape for me to abandon the analog mediums. The farther up the food chain you go the greater the difference in vinyl playback versus digital playback becomes to my ears. My main system has a very good SACD player as a source, and has a very good vinyl source as well. That being said, my records are spotless, and surface noise is minimal, my table is set up properly and the results are stellar. I have LP records cut direct to disc, cut at 45rpm. recorded and cut using tubes from start to finish. The latest Dianna Krall LP is 2 records with one side empty so they could offer the material with out compromise as discussed in the article.

That being said I have SACD offerings of remastered RCA Living Stereo recordings that I prefer the original shaded Dog Mono recording over them. There are so many variables involved to chose one medium over another is a moot. I have fabulous LPs, fabulous R2R tapes, fabulous CDs, and fabulous SACDs. I also have horrible examples of all the formats in my do not play section.

Listen to the music and not the medium. Tap your toe, Smile, Enjoy your music collection like I do mine!

Regards,
Jim
 
Soooooo....
Tell me what I’m listening to and what is happening when I take an original, 1st issue vinyl album and a first issue , AAD cd of the same album, start them at the same time, show 1watt output average on my sx780 pwr. meters when source is set to the vinyl and well over 1 watt output when the cd is selected...I have to turn the volume down.....also, now my vinyl sounds ..” muffled” in comparison......Not what I want...
 
The article keeps harkening back to "dynamic range", as the main reason for the superiority of CDs...... Except, most of us know, most CDs are purposely mastered with REDUCED "dynamic range". So while I don't doubt CDs are technically superior. It's like a modern sports car with a speed limiter at 60mph vs an older budget sports car without one.
 
So is Vinyl - they lower the bass output, compress the dynamic range and, decrease stereo separation. NOT ALL CD's are done that way, not even most.

Yes, but it's almost impossible to master a vinyl with brickwall mastering like so many CDs are nowadays. There might've been a short period from the late 80s to early 90s where CDs weren't brickwall mastered. But after that, most CDs are brickwall mastered, unless all you listen to is classical, jazz, and movie soundtracks.
 
Sure it is. ANY new VINYL is mastered Brickwall if it is from a digital master and that is cheaper to do. It is how it is done now. And most remastered vinyl is also brickwalled if they use a digital system. That is how it works.

Yes, but vinyl inherent physical limitations, force them to undo some of that brickwalling, As described in the following "Too much bass in one speaker could make the needle skip out of the groove, as would too much sibilance — a harsh "s" — in a singer's voice."

You can verify this for yourself easily, rip the CD, and record the vinyl into an audio interface. Then use a playback software that can create a waveform of the dynamic range (I use foobar2000 waveform seekbar)
 
More fuel...the fire was getting low. Note as well the embedded link to "Digital Show & Tell" here, very illuminating, in a harsh, brittle, cold, and lifelessly digital way...

BTW, I can't believe how for shit my ears are. Cripes!
 
I didn't find anything in the article to be ground breaking just the same stuff presented by another author trying to get a story published riding off the skirts of the debate between digital and analog.

Whether the author is able to convince the newbies to reverse their buying trend of vinyl over CD's won't be based on any of the points he made regarding the superiority of the CD over that of the record. Most the people who are buying into this vinyl renaissance don't care about how good vinyl sounds, if they did they wouldn't be buying the turntables that they are, spinning records, and claiming it some how sounds better than a CD, because their is no way it does.

I would think that most, maybe not all, people who have been involved with vinyl for any length of time would agree that "if", vinyl can sound better than the newer format, the CD, your not going to accomplish it using a cheap 200 dollar or maybe even higher priced new turntable. In my experience "if" one was to get a record to come even close to sounding equally as good as a cheap CD player its going to take quite a bit of work and decent equipment to accomplish the task. I see all these new people posting questions in the LP thread about which new table to buy, and I have to ask myself why?

I can understand the debate of vinyl verse digital but not when your talking budget tables and playback equipment. With the current offerings that I see of new turntables that the new vinyl buyers are purchasing, I don't see how their could be a debate.
 
Ummmm the SOHC "Cammer" was a 427 and was never used in Mustangs.......71 Mustangs used the 429 in CJ or SCJ config. 428s were used in 69-70s

Wasn’t referring to a stock vehicle....just like how most vintage turntables on this site are not stock !!!! My turntable is not even stock as it was out of the box..... I put a 428 OHSC into a ‘71 Mercury Cyclone Eliminator and had pieced cars together for decades. Interchangeablity my boy.....interchangeablity !!!

Your presuming again......:cool:
 
Once it is brickwalled it can't be undone. Sorry. Most brickwalling is done during recording.

Well, you are just expanding a compressed copy - tells you absolutely nothing.

Try this CD - The Pizarelli Boys - Sundays at Pete. A most amazing new CD.

I don't doubt that CD sounds very good, I have many good sounding CDs myself. But are you're trying to claim the CD version will always sound better? That's just not the case. I digitize everything to my NAS that I really like including, my vinyl and my CDs. I use waveform seekbars that can visualize the dynamic range when I play. I've seen CD versions have better DR, I've seen vinyl versions have better DR. I'll add I don't buy new CDs or vinyls, I buy used from thrift stores only. CDs are my preference, they usually handle the physical abuse better, so they're a less risky buy for me, they're easy to backup (with auto tagging). I would love it if the CD version was always better. But it isn't, that's why in those cases I'm willing to spend the hour or more it takes to digitize a vinyl in real time, manually split the tracks, and manually tag the tracks
 
Wasn’t referring to a stock vehicle....just like how most vintage turntables on this site are not stock !!!! My turntable is not even stock as it was out of the box..... I put a 428 OHSC into a ‘71 Mercury Cyclone Eliminator and had pieced cars together for decades. Interchangeablity my boy.....interchangeablity !!!

Your presuming again......:cool:
I am not presuming that Ford did not make a SOHC 428 as they did not, the Cammer was a 427......and it was one of the most rare and expensive race engines of the time.
 
Wasn’t referring to a stock vehicle....just like how most vintage turntables on this site are not stock !!!! My turntable is not even stock as it was out of the box..... I put a 428 OHSC into a ‘71 Mercury Cyclone Eliminator and had pieced cars together for decades. Interchangeablity my boy.....interchangeablity !!!

Your presuming again......:cool:
 
I am not presuming that Ford did not make a SOHC 428 as they did not, the Cammer was a 427......and it was one of the most rare and expensive race engines of the time.

Cool....

It’s a great engine !!

My mistake, it was an engine using the 428 SJ block with the Canadian 428 SJ heads.
 
Wasn’t referring to a stock vehicle....just like how most vintage turntables on this site are not stock !!!! My turntable is not even stock as it was out of the box..... I put a 428 OHSC into a ‘71 Mercury Cyclone Eliminator and had pieced cars together for decades. Interchangeablity my boy.....interchangeablity !!!

Your presuming again......:cool:
my old man had a SCJ in one, but it wasnt stock. huge highrise, braces everywhere, 2 4bbls, 8000rpm limit. 4mpg. rusty as fords of old were in the pitt area. if you are an old timer, you saw it at quail or read about it...it got to the point he worried about flooring it and leaving a significant portion of the car behind....

the rule for fords is: if it bolts, it fits.
 
Back
Top Bottom