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

It is rather rude to continue to thread crap the OP's thread with car talk. No one should have to point that out, think if it was your thread, be respectful.
 
That’s what most people think.....

The Ford 400-4V is a big block Cleveland engine !!!
no such aminal on multiple counts. the 335 series 400 was never sold with a 4bbl carb, and its a tall deck version of more correctly, the 335 series. as mentioned before, the heads interchange C/W/M with some work, but dimensionally, its different on many counts.
 
It is rather rude to continue to thread crap the OP's thread with car talk. No one should have to point that out, think if it was your thread, be respectful.
gotcha, the building tensions and fight and eventual closing is more preferable. Got it. Noted.
 
no such aminal on multiple counts. the 335 series 400 was never sold with a 4bbl carb, and its a tall deck version of more correctly, the 335 series. as mentioned before, the heads interchange C/W/M with some work, but dimensionally, its different on many counts.

Not thinking of the 402 engine from the 335 series....that’s evident !! The engine wasn’t common and was utilized during the time when they first came out with smog controls.
 
Hi! I'm getting back into "vinyl" but I can't figure out where to put the record?


My '78 Cougar had the record post thingy AND a super-duper Quadraphonic 8-Track (which is better than the CD player I have now), but I can't figure out where everything hooks up on this new system.

Please help!
 
...but seriously...
The problem with these questions and these analyses is that we're not answering the question that is being asked, 'what sounds better?"

Having worked with engineers for all of my professional career, representing the exponent of humanity (my customer) in a lot of conversations like this, it has been my experience that engineers will often answer the question they think you should have asked, rather than the question that was actually asked. They do this because, subconsciously, they know that their fancy maths cannot answer your "irrational" question, and so, try to distill (digitize?) your question into something to which they can apply their formulas and knowledge. Or, quite possibly, it is because they are devoid of all humanity in the first place, and a question like the above "DOES NOT COMPUTE." :rflmao:

As a result, engineers hear the question "WHAT SOUNDS BETTER" and, after fancy maths and slideshows, video tutorials and experiments, come up with the answer to the question, "WHICH SOUND IS BETTER." Thanks for all of the work, but that's not the question we asked. Because we're dealing with a human emotion here, and have no variable for this human factor included, the answer works for some, but leaves the vast majority behind. That human factor is so complex, maybe even absurd, certainly unknowable, but to ignore it is akin to applying Newtonian physics to the quantum interactions of the wider Universe. T'ain't gonna work.

Now I'm certainly biased -since we live in an ANALOG world, I honestly believe that an ANALOG representation of that world, no matter how flawed or restricted it may be, is "better" than a DIGITAL sample, no matter how close to "perfect" it may be. But that's not based on math (or even "facts") so really only applies to my own personal universe, and valid only within the crusty and polluted confines of my own head.

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :boring: :blah::blah::blah:

So what. Big deal.
 
Now I'm certainly biased -since we live in an ANALOG world, I honestly believe that an ANALOG representation of that world, no matter how flawed or restricted it may be, is "better" than a DIGITAL sample, no matter how close to "perfect" it may be. But that's not based on math (or even "facts") so really only applies to my own personal universe, and valid only within the crusty and polluted confines of my own head.
Whilst we're being somewhat metaphysical, it's perhaps worth noting that we don't really live in an analog world. At the building-blocks-of-the-universe level, we live in a relativistic quantum world, which is neither analog nor digital.

Far too much importance -- and misunderstanding -- results from a rather irrelevant focus on the terms "analog" and "digital", particularly as they are technological categories rather than specific technologies. As such, it is just as unreasonable to declare that digital (or analog) is categorically better (for some undefined value of "better") than analog (or digital) as it is to declare that airplanes are categorically better than cars, or vice versa. Only individual, specific reproduction technologies -- like Red Book CD vs LP 33rpm stereo vinyl -- can sometimes be reasonably compared against each other, both subjectively and objectively, and only under well-defined circumstances.
 
Whilst we're being somewhat metaphysical, it's perhaps worth noting that we don't really live in an analog world. At the building-blocks-of-the-universe level, we live in a relativistic quantum world, which is neither analog nor digital.

...and at some point, our understanding of the universe will go beyond the "quantum" level, on to something even more strange or profound.

I guess the point was that, without understanding the fundamentals of how the brain / consciousness interacts / interfaces with the universe, it would seem to me that it is more of an "analog" interface, than a digital one, but like you said, we're applying technology formats to the metaphysical so... who knows?
 
Airplanes ARE categorically better than cars, is some cases, such as if you wish to visit Hawaii. But which would you rather drive through a tunnel on a twisty mountain road? The SOUND you hear is an analog representation of an electrical signal, regardless of the source.(assuming we're speaking strictly of sound reproduction) The overall quality rating of any activity can only be judged by being there, and even then is subject to debate. I might have thought it was a blast, you might have been bored. Which of us was right?

Better truly exists only in the space between the ears...
 
Airplanes ARE categorically better than cars, is some cases, such as if you wish to visit Hawaii. But which would you rather drive through a tunnel on a twisty mountain road?
By definition, that does not mean airplanes are categorically better than cars. It means airplanes are better than cars when you want to go to Hawaii, but cars are better than airplanes when you want to drive through a tunnel on a twisty mountain road, which is the opposite of "categorically better".

Which is better depends on the circumstances -- and the working definition of "better" -- which was precisely my point. For airplanes to be categorically better than cars, or vice versa, they would have to be better at everything in all circumstances, and they aren't.

Likewise, for digital to be categorically better than analog -- or for analog to be categorically better than digital -- the one would have to be better than the other in everything in all circumstances.
 
I think it depends on the category. Both airplane and car are modes of transportation, but that's about the only thing they have in common. One will get you to Hawaii with a minimum of fuss and bother. One is easier to park at a convenience store. Is one truly 'better' than the other? They don't really do the same job, other than go from Point A to Point B. One is really only practical for distances over a couple of hundred miles. And the enjoyment of either is dependent entirely on the passenger of whichever conveyance you choose. If you fly or drive for business, it may be just another ho-hum trip. If you're going on your first vacation in 30 years, it could be the most fun you've ever had. As a flying machine, an airplane IS categorically better than a car, in EVERY way. Apples and oranges, as it were.

CD and vinyl do the exact same job, they store information on a flat plastic disc. They just do it differently. Some people like CD because it's fairly convenient. No muss, no fuss, just music, out of thin air. CD's take up less space. They hold up to 80 minutes of music, more if mp3 encoded, tho at the expense of sound quality. You can even polish scratches out of them! And it fits with their IDEA of perfect sound reproduction. But everybody gets the exact same signal to what ever their sound reproduction chain consists of. Mostly, CD is boring, never mind the technical 'perfection'. And nothing is perfect, not even CD. But it's not the medium itself, as much as it is the equipment used to play it. If CD was perfect, they wouldn't still be trying to make it better. The technical specs on your CDP may be somewhat better than my player, but it's likely not really a truly audible improvement. Most players will sound pretty much the same in any given system, it's the technical limits of the medium and the gear. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and I've heard some pretty good CD rigs. Mostly tho, CD is what it is.

Working your way up to a vinyl experience you truly enjoy, one that fits YOUR idea of sonic perfection (or at least good enough. for now) is an experience CD fans will never know. Being able to tailor the sound to your liking at the source, rather that farther down the chain. The ability to interact with the system, instead of just pushing buttons. The expense and inconvenience are an accepted part of the journey. And when it all comes together? A different kind of satisfaction from hitting a button on a remote, and having music come out of nowhere, in my opinion.

Which platform do you find more enjoyable? Then THAT'S better.
 
Last edited:
WIW2: I find that CD players, 1-12 disc built 1990-1999 are in fairly high demand as those who have re-discovered 2 channel goodness want CDs as well as vinyl. Kudos to the pioneer (and optimus) makes that take the 6 disc cartridge - people really love those. I blame this backlash on those who have <insert digital media player of choice> plugged into the good stereo with the good speakers. or in other words, if you want to hear just how shitty your laptop or ipod or ? sound in real life, plug it into my office sx890 and carvin monitors and take a listen. I keep a trash can close by so when you vomit....

PC's sound really very good, running JRIVER, to an external DAC. I've deliberately taken your quote out of context though :p

I find pretty much any decent transport for CD's sounds great into a quality DAC. Unusually I prefer the S.M.S.L M8 to the built-in Philips TDA1541 in my Marantz CD-63SE. I really shouldn't though as the TDA1541 is meant to be one hell of a DAC chip. I suspect poor implementation or aging caps.

I listen to both digital and vinyl (new and old). Most of the time I listen to digital as it is easier to deal with. Just remember, there is no such thing as a digital microphone - that is analog pure and simple :D .

Too right, and there's no such thing as a digital speaker.... Thank goodness.

Every digital audio source is ultimately converted back to analog by the time it gets to your amplifier and speakers!

You beat me to it ;)

All said and done I do believe that the CD is a more accurate format. I still prefer to listen to LP's most of the time. A more enjoyable listen. When I can't be bothered I listen to either CD, MP3, FLAC, WMA or OGG files. I've built up quite a few of each over the years. I still can't hear any real difference between variable bitrate OGG files and FLAC though. Go figure right?
 
Back
Top Bottom