# So you really CAN tell the difference



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

We were at the cottage this weekend and thanks to sikorski sized mosquitos, we sat inside at night. I realised that I have alot of the tunes on my iPod on viynl there so we decided to put it to the test. Now, we don't even have a super great Turntable, it's decent with a decent cartridge and there really was a difference. I tried out some Robert Plant (Ship of Fools) just loved the sound of the guitars on that one, some Genesis, Billy idol, Neil Young and Led Zep. The digital versions are just louder and sharper they very definately lose the sublty of say, a high hat. it was interesting and a great way to spend a Friday night. I'm thankful my daughter will know what an "Album" is. Boy do I miss pouring over the inner sleeve or records, reading every word.


----------



## lbrown1 (Mar 22, 2007)

Starbuck said:


> We were at the cottage this weekend and thanks to sikorski sized mosquitos, we sat inside at night. I realised that I have alot of the tunes on my iPod on viynl there so we decided to put it to the test. Now, we don't even have a super great Turntable, it's decent with a decent cartridge and there really was a difference. I tried out some Robert Plant (Ship of Fools) just loved the sound of the guitars on that one, some Genesis, Billy idol, Neil Young and Led Zep. The digital versions are just louder and sharper they very definately lose the sublty of say, a high hat. it was interesting and a great way to spend a Friday night. I'm thankful my daughter will know what an "Album" is. Boy do I miss pouring over the inner sleeve or records, reading every word.


another observation besides the sound........I remember being so incredible excited going to the record store, picking the album off the shelf, bringing it home, and listening to it......and even later on - the cassette tape (I played Zepp's Physical graffiti so much I wore it out twice - had to keep buying replacement tapes).....but today, music is so easily accessible, its lost something along the way....


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Starbuck said:


> We were at the cottage this weekend and thanks to sikorski sized mosquitos, we sat inside at night. I realised that I have alot of the tunes on my iPod on viynl there so we decided to put it to the test. Now, we don't even have a super great Turntable, it's decent with a decent cartridge and there really was a difference. I tried out some Robert Plant (Ship of Fools) just loved the sound of the guitars on that one, some Genesis, Billy idol, Neil Young and Led Zep. The digital versions are just louder and sharper they very definately lose the sublty of say, a high hat. it was interesting and a great way to spend a Friday night. I'm thankful my daughter will know what an "Album" is. Boy do I miss pouring over the inner sleeve or records, reading every word.


My eyesight has declined in recent years, to the point where reading and appreciating CD liner notes and art is nearly impossible. For that reason I miss good old 33 1/3rpm LPs. I sometimes display old record covers in my teaching studio. It's fun to watch the response they get.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

There is something to be said for *lack* of fidelity as well, when it comes to rock and roll.

One of the most disappointing musical experiences of my life was walking into the old Phantasmagoria record store on Park Avenue near Sherbrooke in Montreal, many many years ago, and hearing "Brown Sugar" on a decent stereo for the first time. I was so accustomed to hearing it on the radio that when the instruments were individually discernible, I simply could not get past the wimpy acoustic guitar strumming in the back of the opening chordal chunking. It went from a powerful rock experience to a folksy strum-along. Bleccchhh!!

Sometimes fidelity is the enemy.


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

I have Led Zep Iv on vinyl and boy oh boy, it sounds so much better on the turntable than it does on my mp3 player or computer. It just sounds much more warm and organic on vinyl. Almost like comparing a tube amp to a solid state.


----------



## puckhead (Sep 8, 2008)

I've really got to get a record player again. Still have all my albums in the basement - haven't listened to them for probably a decade.

love the comment ont he artwork too... here was my highschool wall decor.


----------



## Vintage_Groove (Mar 4, 2008)

lbrown1 said:


> another observation besides the sound........I remember being so incredible excited going to the record store, picking the album off the shelf, bringing it home, and listening to it......and even later on - the cassette tape (I played Zepp's Physical graffiti so much I wore it out twice - had to keep buying replacement tapes).....but today, music is so easily accessible, its lost something along the way....


Well this is good to read because I'm going through the same thoughts myself. I never had a big collection of albums (love RUSH though and have all my albums still). I never got into a good stereo system either, as my parents bought the all in one (including 8 track) wooden beast that we used constantly. Eventually the turntable broke and by that point CDs looked way to convenient to ignore, plus I could play them in my car, portable CD player, etc.

But I miss the experience of visiting the record stores (at the mall or downtown), leafing thru the new LPs, buying one or more, getting home and opening them up, looking at the artwork, lyrics, band profiles/instruments, etc. I miss the knowledgeable (but quirky) staff at these places that seemed to know everything.

Albums also forced us to sit and listen, usually with friends, around the stereo, and we could talk about the music, bands, instruments, etc. I was introduced to Alan Parsons, Supertramp, and many other bands during that time.

It was a social event, unlike the very individual experience it seems to be now. Sure, it was a pain if the vinyl got dirty or scratched, but I’m finding my CDs don’t fare much better over time, and I’ve had to replace a number of them again. And with mp3's you don't get any liner notes, artwork, etc.

I see vinyl and liner notes like comic books. Everyone said with comics going to the web and digital, paper comic books would disappear. But people need the tactile experience of holding a comic, and only paper comics hold their value.

Only recently have I read about the Loudness War, and how some people are enjoying vinyl better. A relative of mine snagged a garage sale turntable and a bunch of LPs (Van Halen, Sabbath, etc.). I didn’t take much notice of it at first; until I was over recently and he had a Van Halen song on this average stereo (he found a used amp and some 80's speakers too). I couldn't believe how nice it sounded, more so than the mp3 version I've been listening to exclusively for a while now.

I’ve been looking around for a decently priced, used turntable and other stereo gear. I discovered this guy who refurbishes turntables, amps, speakers, etc. and they are all reasonably priced. I went to meet him to see if he's the real deal, and he is. He stands by the equipment he sells and will keep in touch with you if you have any problems. Check out his website: 

http://www.warmcopper.com/

I plan on getting some nice gear and building up my vinyl collection as well. He lives just north of Toronto. PM me if you want more info on my visit.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

This brings up something that most people have forgotten about MP3's. The bitrate is only a FRACTION of the sound quality of the source recording. The whole idea of MP3's is that the software used to "rip" the file from the CD compresses the data into a much smaller file. This was created because a .wav file (which contains ALL the data) is MUCH too large to be useful. A CD has a sample rate of about 44000 kps. The average MP3 has a sample rate of 192 kps. That an incredible loss of fidelity! MOST people's ears don't pick it up however some who's ears are more trained can. I for example can hear the difference in an MP3 that is 128 kps versus 320 kps. It's especially evident in the high end - things like the cymbals. 

This is where I have a problem with buying digital music of itunes. You're essentially paying the same price for a fraction of the product (since most of the music they sell is at 192 bitrate)


----------



## Vintage_Groove (Mar 4, 2008)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> This brings up something that most people have forgotten about MP3's. The bitrate is only a FRACTION of the sound quality of the source recording. The whole idea of MP3's is that the software used to "rip" the file from the CD compresses the data into a much smaller file. This was created because a .wav file (which contains ALL the data) is MUCH too large to be useful. A CD has a sample rate of about 44000 kps. The average MP3 has a sample rate of 192 kps. That an incredible loss of fidelity! MOST people's ears don't pick it up however some who's ears are more trained can. I for example can hear the difference in an MP3 that is 128 kps versus 320 kps. It's especially evident in the high end - things like the cymbals.
> 
> This is where I have a problem with buying digital music of itunes. You're essentially paying the same price for a fraction of the product (since most of the music they sell is at 192 bitrate)


I didn't realize the loss on mp3's is that bad. 

Is there a similar comparision between an analog vinyl recording vs CD vs mp3? Is there going to be any improvement in the future? Could there be blu-ray audio CD/DVDs?


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2009)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> This is where I have a problem with buying digital music of itunes. You're essentially paying the same price for a fraction of the product (since most of the music they sell is at 192 bitrate)


Yea: but the _convenience_ man! No line ups, no traffic fighting to get to the store. The store is always open. Always there. Impulse purchases abound because $0.99 just don't seem like much money.

I'm not saying MP3s are glorious, but they have their place. You get a reduced quality product, but you can have it in 10 seconds or less once you decide you want it.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Vintage_Groove said:


> I didn't realize the loss on mp3's is that bad.
> 
> Is there a similar comparision between an analog vinyl recording vs CD vs mp3? Is there going to be any improvement in the future? Could there be blu-ray audio CD/DVDs?


The latest buzz regarding high grade digital audio is Blu-Ray. I've not yet had the chance to check it out, but the word is that it approaches the quality of a master recording. I still love vinyl records though. That medium is really condusive to listening to a whole album. When you can skip tracks at the push of a button......most folks will. Not to mention it just sounds so much better than CDs and those awful mp3s.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> This brings up something that most people have forgotten about MP3's. The bitrate is only a FRACTION of the sound quality of the source recording. The whole idea of MP3's is that the software used to "rip" the file from the CD compresses the data into a much smaller file. This was created because a .wav file (which contains ALL the data) is MUCH too large to be useful. A CD has a sample rate of about 44000 kps. The average MP3 has a sample rate of 192 kps. That an incredible loss of fidelity! MOST people's ears don't pick it up however some who's ears are more trained can. I for example can hear the difference in an MP3 that is 128 kps versus 320 kps. It's especially evident in the high end - things like the cymbals.
> 
> This is where I have a problem with buying digital music of itunes. You're essentially paying the same price for a fraction of the product (since most of the music they sell is at 192 bitrate)


That's not quite right, but you're on the right track. 

the 44.1_khz_ on a redbook CD refers to the frequency range. When you halve this, according to the Nyquist theory, you get 22.05khz, which is right around the upper ceiling of a human's hearing capacity.

The actual bitrate of a CD is 1411.2 - they arrive at this rate like so: 
2 channels x 44,100 samples per second per channel × 16 bits per sample = 1,411,200 bit/s = 1,411.2 kbit/s

What an mp3 encoder does is to reduce the samples per second, shaving off the lower and higher frequencies and keeping the mids. So the samples are reduced which affects the overall bitrate.


----------



## Vintage_Groove (Mar 4, 2008)

Rugburn said:


> The latest buzz regarding high grade digital audio is Blu-Ray. I've not yet had the chance to check it out, but the word is that it approaches the quality of a master recording. I still love vinyl records though. That medium is really condusive to listening to a whole album. When you can skip tracks at the push of a button......most folks will. Not to mention it just sounds so much better than CDs and those awful mp3s.


This almost reminds me of the carburator vs EFI choices; carbs are (usually) cheaper, or you can find rebuilt or used ones for cheap, and you can tweak them to your taste, and get very serious horsepower.

EFI is more efficient, better drivability, need way more tech knowledge and gear to tweak, and costs many times more than carbs.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Guess we had the same room..lol...and saw all those show live..




puckhead said:


> I've really got to get a record player again. Still have all my albums in the basement - haven't listened to them for probably a decade.
> 
> love the comment ont he artwork too... here was my highschool wall decor.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Although it only takes a 44.1khz sample rate to produce a 22khz up and down waveform, it takes much more than that to reproduce it *faithfully*. Consider that a 10khz waveform has basically a little more than 4 "snapshots" to represent it at a 44.1khz sample rate. A 5khz waveform has just under 9 snapshots to represent it. While the aliasing produced by low sample rates at 15khz and higher is something that maybe bats can hear, but not humans, aliasing at much lower frequencies CAN be an issue. This is, of course, why we have A/D convertors that operate at 96khz.

The 14-bit resolution that has been the standard for some 25 or more years is also starting to wear thin. In a very interesting interview in Dave Hunter's book on guitar effects, Roger Meyer spouts off about analog vs digital delays. One of the points he makes quite convincingly is that the resolution of many digital encoders is fine for loud passages, but that in subtle things like the wispy delay components of a digital reverb on the tails of a reverberated note, there are often not enough bits to go around and faithfully represent the signal. He uses this to justify his preference for analog delay, because in his view, the "resolution" remains independent of signal level. Interesting viewpoint.

All of this is to say that the 14-bit/44.1khz standard that has served us so well for so long is clearly past its shelf-life, and newer standards with higher sample rates using higher-resolution encoding will certainly emerge soon enough if they haven't already. Over generations, human listeners have aclimated to each technological change in sound reproduction and eventually found it wanting, despite how thrilled they were with it at first. The wax cylinders that Edison used to sell at county fairs were heralded by reporters as "indistinguishable" from a live human speaker. Of course, now, we would easily tell the difference between Memorex and Chuck Mangione, even if Ella Fitzgerald couldn't back then ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32X8sFAlDZM&feature=related )

For myself, I find that acceptable MP3 sample rates would depend on the material. If its a lo-fi recording in the first place (say, circa 1950 Muddy Waters, or something taped off the radio), then 128k and maybe even 96k can provide an acceptable listening experience. If its a recorded rock concert where an audience members hearing would be seriously challenged, 128k can be just as good as being there and going deaf. If its well-recorded acoustic music of recent vintage, then nothing less than 256k is going to even plausibly capture nuances.

All of this dilly-dallying may well be moot when one considers what a lot of MP3-based music gets listened to on. I use a pair of $10 earbuds from The Source that I treat like a consumable. I would be fooling myself to think these deserve more than 256k rates....if that much.


----------



## Vintage_Groove (Mar 4, 2008)

So with all this chat about turntables, vinyl and getting back to our youth...

I was talking with a guy at work with about this topic and it turns out he still has his early 1970's stereo (receiver/amp, TT, speakers and even cabinet!) sitting unused for many years. He sold it to me for a very decent price. I had to have the amp repaired and the TT all cleaned and tuned, but now everything works well. 

A friend played a track off an LP on the turntable with the cartridge it came with, and then swapped in a DJ style one he had. The improvement in sound quality was very noticeable.

I'm going to try to buy a better cartridge; are there any technical specifications and/or brand names I should look for? I'm looking for anything around $200 or less (or even used).


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

I think this points to a bigger issue with the way we look at quality in general in our culture. There's a kind of general acceptance of mediocrity in a lot of different fields out there, from music to technology, to work in general. People figure that an 8 out of 10 is pretty good, and all the work involved in making the experience a 9 or a 9.5 out of 10 is so great that it's not worth it. It's the law of diminishing returns.

The old Japanese or German mentality of seeking technical perfection, of striving for that 10-out-of-10 experience, is in the past. I remember when it meant something to have a hi-fi system which cost a lot more than a cheap radio, because listeners wanted good sound.

Today, I don't even think music listeners care all that much. The vast majority of people listen to music on computer speakers, or cheap earbuds. The file itself is compressed significantly. I've also noticed differences based on which software and computer I've used to "rip" CDs to MP3. Not to mention that the MP3 players themselves vary in quality significantly. I had an iRiver player that was outstanding. My Sony Ericsson cellphone was actually tremendous quality. My Blackberry is not very good at all, and the ipods I've listened to are underwhelming also. But guess what? Not that many people really care. They've gotten used to the mediocrity.

No doubt vinyl sounds better, fuller, more organic than most anything else. I remember the first time I listened to a CD... The sharpness of the sound, the clarity of it, the "perfection" of it, it actually hurt my ears. It took some getting used to. I don't know if anyone else had that experience. But now, whenever I hear something on vinyl (and it's rare, as I don't have a turntable), the warmth of the sound is so soothing. It has the analogue-ness of a live recording, of real sounds, like you hear outdoors, that aren't computer generated.

I think we'll come full circle on this issue again eventually. Pop music, by its definition, will always live in the world of mediocrity, but eventually we'll come back to the organic and the real. You can't stop music, or people's enjoyment of it, it's just too powerful a thing, and people will always keep trying to make it a more pleasurable experience.

--- D


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Vintage_Groove said:


> So with all this chat about turntables, vinyl and getting back to our youth...
> 
> I was talking with a guy at work with about this topic and it turns out he still has his early 1970's stereo (receiver/amp, TT, speakers and even cabinet!) sitting unused for many years. He sold it to me for a very decent price. I had to have the amp repaired and the TT all cleaned and tuned, but now everything works well.
> 
> ...


Audio Technica, Shure and Rega all offer very nice cartridges that can easily be had for under $200 used. Some of their models are <$200 new, as well.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

I still have a turntable (yes, set up in my music room), and most of my old vinyl. However, a lot of it is scratched - who remembers stacking quarters on the cartridge to keep it from skipping?

At the Calgary Blues Fest this summer there was a booth selling turntables and vinyl. I really hope it makes a comeback.

I remember reading long ago how upset Neil Young was on the change to digital.

Interesting that the more expensive Beatles new box set is the mono version. Randy Bachman commented that was THE set to buy. That was the sound of Rock and Roll.

I don't buy from iTunes. I think that some of the best music is found hidden in those obscure tracks that don't make the Top 40. If you like the artist, just go buy the whole album (er, CD).


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Duster said:


> I think this points to a bigger issue with the way we look at quality in general in our culture. There's a kind of general acceptance of mediocrity in a lot of different fields out there, from music to technology, to work in general. People figure that an 8 out of 10 is pretty good, and all the work involved in making the experience a 9 or a 9.5 out of 10 is so great that it's not worth it. It's the law of diminishing returns.
> 
> The old Japanese or German mentality of seeking technical perfection, of striving for that 10-out-of-10 experience, is in the past. I remember when it meant something to have a hi-fi system which cost a lot more than a cheap radio, because listeners wanted good sound.
> 
> ...


All of that is very valid and I agree, however. I DO love my iPod. I work in an office that has done away with cubicle to maximize space, where you used to be able to have a radio on low, now it may distract someone. Enter iPod. Radio drives me crazy and I think I'd crash if i had Siruis, enter iPod. I like to run and mountainbike and it's great to creat playlists SUPER fast and take them with me on my arm. 

All that said, I love the records at the cottage, wish I had more of them. Maybe the younger ones will never understand the difference, but I really do, however I like the convienience.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

puckhead said:


> I've really got to get a record player again. Still have all my albums in the basement - haven't listened to them for probably a decade.
> 
> love the comment ont he artwork too... here was my highschool wall decor.


I remember that Scorpions Love At First Sting vividly, because it was the very first CD I ever purchased. Back when they had just come out and I think I spent $600 on the player and about $30.00 for that CD. So that album/cd marked the last time I think I ever purchased any wax.


----------



## Pneumonic (Feb 14, 2008)

This is a topic near and dear to my audiophile heart.

Just want to start off by saying that MP3 files, no matter the encoding type/bit rate, is a seriously compromised format in terms of sound quality. In terms of sound quality it would analogous to comparing an 8 track (MP3) to a cassette (redbook CD). 

As for the argument that the redbook standard of (16 bit depth and 44.1 kHz sampling rate) isn't sufficient when compared to vinyl/analog ........ phooey. Here's why.

Bit depth background. Note that 16 bits equates to a dynamic range of 96dB [Dynamic Range (dB) = SNR(dB) = 20Log(2^n) + 1.8, where n is the number of bits]. The signal that comes off even the finest quality LP, pressed on heavyweight virgin vinyl, has a dynamic range of no more than 70dB, and that's on a good day with a following wind. More likely it's in the 65dB range and that's even stretching things for the most part. But let's give the benefit of the doubt and go with 70dB. 70dB equates to less than 12 bits of resolution. 11.3 by math but, since there is no such thing as a fractional bit we round up to 12 bits. Therefore, 12 dB bit resolution would be more than enough to capture the info that is on a slab of vinyl ..... which makes 16 bits overkill.

Sampling rate background. 44.1kHz sample rate equates to maximum frequency response of 22.05 kHz. A mathmetician named Nyquist proved long ago that so long as you sample a frequency at at least double it's maximum value then 100% of the original signal is preserved within the samples including all the nuances and subtle stuff that falls in-between the samples. For audio purposes, the range chosen was the audible hearing range for humans which is 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Not that many humans can reach to either extreme. Nonetheless, according to the theorem, the sound needs be sampled at least at double that highest frequency. So, in this case, 20 kHz. Doubling this would be 40 kHz in order for the reconstructed sound signal to be accurate for human hearing. In practice 44.1 kHz was used not only because it satisfies the Nyquist criteria but also because it allows designers to avoid signal distortion due to filter rolloff done to counter any aliasing effects. 

Further, I know about the bandwidth limiting/ultrasonic (hypersonic) frequency/beat tone argument against the 44.1kHz limit but those who argue this fact seem to be forgetting that analog also filters out all info above 20kHz since those analog components (speakers and cartridges for example) don’t have much real response exceeding 20 kHz in the first place. if that's not enough, take the mics used on all of the recordings that we listen too. Not one of those mics have a frequency response that extends beyond 20kHz meaning there is no pertinent musical info beyond 19kHz on the master disc/tape to be recorded to either digital or analog/vinyl in the first place! Thus the redbook standard of using 44.1 kHz sampling rate is way more than enough to properly represent any analog signal you'd find on any analog recorded medium.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Pneumonic said:


> This is a topic near and dear to my audiophile heart.
> 
> Just want to start off by saying that MP3 files, no matter the encoding type/bit rate, is a seriously compromised format in terms of sound quality. In terms of sound quality it would analogous to comparing an 8 track (MP3) to a cassette (redbook CD).
> 
> ...


I like the little hissing sound when you put the needle on the record, as well as the little crackling and popping just before the music starts. 

--- D


----------



## Pneumonic (Feb 14, 2008)

Duster said:


> I like the little hissing sound when you put the needle on the record, as well as the little crackling and popping just before the music starts.
> 
> --- D


I do too which is why I have captured all of those ugly distortions and colourations that vinyl has to offer, by needledropping (digitizing) about 500 of my best sounding slabs of vinyl. :smile:

- Kerry


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I remember that Scorpions Love At First Sting vividly, because it was the very first CD I ever purchased. Back when they had just come out and I think I spent $600 on the player and about $30.00 for that CD. So that album/cd marked the last time I think I ever purchased any wax.


LOL! Me too cause I bought it on wax and my Dad was appalled that i would bring home such pornography at the age of 16!


----------



## Vintage_Groove (Mar 4, 2008)

I don't necessarily see that aquiring a vintage stereo and turntable will replace my CDs and mp3s. I look at each more for being good at their specific use, and enjoy them as such. 

If I'm home and have time to listen, I'll put on an LP. If I'm doing stuff around the house or I'm in the car, I'll put on a CD. If I'm on the computer and just want background music I'll use mp3s. I don't see one overtaking the other, they're just a different avenue for me to enjoy music. 

With LPs I get to rumage thru stores and racks, hang out with friends that are into that, I get to open the album cover up and read it, put the vinyl on the turntable, etc. It's just a different experience, that takes me back to being in highschool.

But I remember now how quick I was to ditch LPs in the mid-80s for CDs. Smaller, clear sound, portable, the LP couldn't touch that. And mp3s; no physical medium, just throw them on a USB stick or iPod, and off you go. Nothing to stock on shelves, etc.


----------



## Shiny_Beast (Apr 16, 2009)

to beat this topic up a bit more, 

mp3s don't just throw away information. The process looks for data that isn't importand and tosses that, so it's not just like a sample rate drop or anything. The bitrate for an mp3 is simply how much information is there. It doesn't directly correspond to sample rate or bit depth of the processed mp3.

The Nuquest theory is great, given infinit resources to process the encoded signal. Typically though it's a crappy ass CD player which likely does little more than connect the dots and run the signal through a crude low pass filter. It's getting better but you have to spend some money. Of sourse, in the 80s spending $200 on a turntable wasn't that outrageous, now we expect a decent CD player for somewhat less. In the end I suppose that will be the case though, but not right now IMO.

Worse I suspect that recordings are mastered to sound better on a cd player. What does that mean? push the high end that used to be obscurred by the condition of the lp so people think they are getting the "digital excperience"? (yes I'm a digiphobe lol).

There's other things, like the failings of analogue are usually smoothed over in a pleasant way. Where digital falls down, it falls flat on it's face.

Either way, make no mistake, the last 20 years have beem the dark ages of consumer audio.

I beleive digital can and will sound good, eventually. I dropped close to a grand on a Cambridge CD plaer who's chip was getting a lot of positive attention. It sounds good if you ask me. It's also a quality unit and you can tell, which has it's pluses. It's still not vinyl though.

All my personal opinion, YMMV


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I gave all my vinyl to my brother 10 years ago. I haven't missed it.


----------



## Pneumonic (Feb 14, 2008)

Shiny_Beast said:


> to beat this topic up a bit more,
> 
> mp3s don't just throw away information. The process looks for data that isn't importand and tosses that, so it's not just like a sample rate drop or anything. The bitrate for an mp3 is simply how much information is there. It doesn't directly correspond to sample rate or bit depth of the processed mp3.
> 
> ...


Beating it some more ....

Standard (16 bit/44.1 kHz) redbook digital (ie CD) is currently state of the art. I have tons of CD's which are spectacular sounding from labels that put the time, energy and effort into producing state of the art sound. If anyone should doubt this then grab hold of some material from audiophile labels such as Chesky, Reference Recordings, Dorian, Klavier, Walter Lily, Telarc, Opus3, Sheffiled Labs, Linn, Naim, Proprius, Windham Hills, etc. These labels have all proven, beyond and shadow of a doubt, that good ole standard redook CD can sound state of the art and that any sound quality issues present with a CD isn't the fault of the redbook standard itself but, rather its implementation. The majority of recordings are not good enough to begin even stretching the limits of redbook CD. The problem with many CD's is they are horribly compressed, horredously (re)mastered and, many, use inferior analog to digital converters during the transfer from original masters. This is especially true of much (most?) of the rock CD's from the 60's, 70's and 80's. Much of it I can't tolerate on my main rig for more than a song or two because my system is so revealing that I suffer severe listener fatigue and have to stop listening.

BTW, just a few quick points about vinyl. I share the same belief if many fellow audiophiles that it is the distortion and colourations inherent in vinyl playback that people enjoy most. They hear the distortion of the record walls and tracking distortions, of the needle scrapping along the groove, of the arm/cartridge distortions added, of the tables rumble not to mention wow and flutter and all the other analog artifacts that are present in a heavily mechanical process for the transmission of sound. When that info is no longer available to them (ie they play a CD) they miss it. Much like I miss hearing my tubes generating distortions galore when I pump a signal thru them. That's why some of us record our vinyl digitally and copy all of those distortions and colouration goodness that vinyl has to offer so that we can listen to the music over and over again with nary a worry about grooving out our pristine vinyl copies anymore than need be.


- Kerry


----------



## Vintage_Groove (Mar 4, 2008)

Last night I setup the amp, TT and speakers. I put on 2 different LPs, and man, do they sound good...

I was half expecting to hear crackles and pops all around, but no, the music was smooth, clear and dare I say it? Warm.

I had a friend over who's been skeptical about this whole stereo rig purchase of mine. First, because it's all from the early 1970's, and second because he thinks CDs are great.

But even he stood quiet as the music played through the speakers. Maybe he'll be a convert too...


----------



## aC2rs (Jul 9, 2007)

Who has tried the new 180g, remastered, virgin vinyl?

I have purchased a few recently, and the first things I've noticed is the lack of surface noise. Interestingly some of the LPs have absoluetly superb sound quality, while others are much more ordinary which I put down to the quality of the original tapes.

The asking price for new vinyl isn't cheap, and although I have come across a lot of records that I would like to add to my collection, I have to justify the cost - one new vinyl or two or three or even four new cds?


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

aC2rs said:


> Who has tried the new 180g, remastered, virgin vinyl?
> 
> I have purchased a few recently, and the first things I've noticed is the lack of surface noise. Interestingly some of the LPs have absoluetly superb sound quality, while others are much more ordinary which I put down to the quality of the original tapes.
> 
> The asking price for new vinyl isn't cheap, and although I have come across a lot of records that I would like to add to my collection, I have to justify the cost - one new vinyl or two or three or even four new cds?


You're bang on. Audiophile quality 180 gram vinyl sounds fantastic, but you still need to take care of it, or it will eventually degrade.

Even old records can sound fantastic once properly cleaned. There's any number of record cleaning devices out there ranging from the mildly expensive to the ridiculous. One of the better makes is the Nitty Gritty. Here's a review of the 1.5, which is middle-of-the-pack for them. It's still pricey at around $500, but anyone who's even remotely serious about vinyl and wants their discs to sound as good as they can should invest in one.

Alternatively, some hi-fi stores will let you bring in your discs to clean with their in-house cleaner for about $1 a disc.

Between a decent record cleaner and a demagnetizer gun, even shoddy old records can play wonderfully and have minimal hiss, pop and crackle.


----------



## Vintage_Groove (Mar 4, 2008)

hollowbody said:


> You're bang on. Audiophile quality 180 gram vinyl sounds fantastic, but you still need to take care of it, or it will eventually degrade.
> 
> Even old records can sound fantastic once properly cleaned. There's any number of record cleaning devices out there ranging from the mildly expensive to the ridiculous. One of the better makes is the Nitty Gritty. Here's a review of the 1.5, which is middle-of-the-pack for them. It's still pricey at around $500, but anyone who's even remotely serious about vinyl and wants their discs to sound as good as they can should invest in one.
> 
> ...


This is great info. I've got a roller and spray, just need a brush. I heard about the gun, but are there any anti-static mats? I'll also need to buy better sleeves for each album. I'm lucky in that I don't have a lot of LPs right now so the time/cost won't be too bad.


----------



## aC2rs (Jul 9, 2007)

Vintage_Groove said:


> But I miss the experience of visiting the record stores (at the mall or downtown), leafing thru the new LPs, buying one or more, getting home and opening them up, looking at the artwork, lyrics, band profiles/instruments, etc. I miss the knowledgeable (but quirky) staff at these places that seemed to know everything.
> 
> Albums also forced us to sit and listen, usually with friends, around the stereo, and we could talk about the music, bands, instruments, etc. I was introduced to Alan Parsons, Supertramp, and many other bands during that time.
> 
> ...


Well said. I really think you have made some very interesting and valid points.

I too discovered a lot of great music with friends sitting in front of a stereo and listening to two complete sides and then either just enjoying the music or discussing it afterwards. In addition there was 12" of artwork to look at while listening, and reading the liner notes. Sometimes we were treated to other special features like, posters or double gate sleeves or coloured vinyl. And, of course there was the experience of going from store to store discovering new music possibly something unusual or rare on import.

Vinyl records required a greater degree of listener involvement and as a result the listener was rewarded for the effort. 

With the arrival of CDs the artwork was reduced dramatically in size which lost its impact and the liner notes or credits are so small that they are barely legible. CDs are certainly more convenient though as they can be easily played at home, in the car, or in portable players -oh- and you can skip or even program out tracks on the album. 

MP3s seem to be the antithesis of an LP. No artwork or liner notes, no social interaction listening through headphones. They are easy to acquire so no real sense of discovery, and being easy to get, is music much more easily discarded?


----------



## Pneumonic (Feb 14, 2008)

aC2rs said:


> Who has tried the new 180g, remastered, virgin vinyl?
> 
> I have purchased a few recently, and the first things I've noticed is the lack of surface noise. Interestingly some of the LPs have absoluetly superb sound quality, while others are much more ordinary which I put down to the quality of the original tapes.
> 
> The asking price for new vinyl isn't cheap, and although I have come across a lot of records that I would like to add to my collection, I have to justify the cost - one new vinyl or two or three or even four new cds?


Interesting.

One of the biggest complaints of vinylheads these days is the seriously poor quality (as in noise not sound) of new, 180/200g, vinyl releases. Especially those from Classic records. Very high return rates on these. My experience is washing them a few times BEFORE playing them cleans them up but, at the prices these new offerings fetch, washing prior to playing shouldn't be a requirement.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

aC2rs said:


> Well said. I really think you have made some very interesting and valid points.
> 
> I too discovered a lot of great music with friends sitting in front of a stereo and listening to two complete sides and then either just enjoying the music or discussing it afterwards. In addition there was 12" of artwork to look at while listening, and reading the liner notes. Sometimes we were treated to other special features like, posters or double gate sleeves or coloured vinyl. And, of course there was the experience of going from store to store discovering new music possibly something unusual or rare on import.
> 
> ...


It all depends on the listener. I would guess about 90% of people who listen to music do so as a background thing. The rate might actually be much higher, for all I know. This is a product of our times, not necessarily because vinyl isn't around. Multi-tasking and immediate gratification are ubiquitous these days, and it's probably more likely that vinyl (and later CDs) disappeared because there was a need to find a medium that better suited the zeitgeist of the late 90s and now the 21st century.

As far as album art/liner notes goes. I used to appreciate these as much as anyone else, but now, I'm just as glad not to have them. As much as album art was sometimes as exciting as the music, I find that without them, I tend to be forced to actually _listen_ instead of reading along. A few exceptions exist: Pearl Jam for instance - I would love to have liner notes with lyrics because Eddie's mumbling is tough to stumble though, but oh well.

Then again, I realize I'm not your average listener. My day consists of at least 10 hours of music listening. I listen to music to and from work, as well as @ work all day. A lot of it is background, yes, but every now and then I spend an entire subway ride listening to nothing but a new album. On top of it all, music is always playing at home, again, with varying amounts of background/foreground listening.

To open a different can of worms, the decline of modern music has resulted in the single-driven mentality. Most people don't wand to hear an album when they can iTunes the single for $0.99. To that end, musicians (if you can call them that) no longer put in a concerted effort to create an album, instead they slap together a mish-mash of tracks that rarely coalesce into a unified thought and then stick something catchy enough to be a single somewhere in the first four tracks. No wonder no one sits in front of a stereo listening to an album anymore. Would you, if DSOTM or Zoso were created this way?


----------



## Vintage_Groove (Mar 4, 2008)

With incorporating vinyl back into our lives (or some never left), we'll probably always be in the minority. All I know is I've listened to CDs for years, and lately mp3s. I get headaches with the mp3s. I put on vinyl and it just sounds good, almost soothing. No science, just my impression.

But...I like the portability of CDs, and yet hate having to change those too. I prefer mp3's now in the car, and at home. If I'm tooling around I use mp3s, when I do have time to listen (evening) I prefer the experience and sound of the LPs.

I did this for another reason too; to expose my son to LPs. He's fascinated by them, asking how the needle works, why the records are so big, etc.

I wish I had a rotary phone still to show him that too...and a 1977 Ford LTD II wagon...


----------



## Pneumonic (Feb 14, 2008)

hollowbody said:


> it all depends on the listener. I would guess about 90% of people who listen to music do so as a background thing. The rate might actually be much higher, for all i know. This is a product of our times, not necessarily because vinyl isn't around. Multi-tasking and immediate gratification are ubiquitous these days, and it's probably more likely that vinyl (and later cds) disappeared because there was a need to find a medium that better suited the zeitgeist of the late 90s and now the 21st century.
> 
> As far as album art/liner notes goes. I used to appreciate these as much as anyone else, but now, i'm just as glad not to have them. As much as album art was sometimes as exciting as the music, i find that without them, i tend to be forced to actually _listen_ instead of reading along. A few exceptions exist: Pearl jam for instance - i would love to have liner notes with lyrics because eddie's mumbling is tough to stumble though, but oh well.
> 
> ...


+1 ............


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I think the argument that vinyl sounds better than MP3 is stating the obvious.


The benefit to MP3 is accessability and convenience.


It really depends on what the priority is. For me, the sound quality of the recording is secondary to the songwriting. 

Yes, I'd rather the sound was as good as it can be, however the net difference in my personal case, is that before I got my iPod, my CDs sat idle in drawers. Since I got the iPod every single day withoput fail.


----------



## Pneumonic (Feb 14, 2008)

Vintage_Groove said:


> With incorporating vinyl back into our lives (or some never left), we'll probably always be in the minority. All I know is I've listened to CDs for years, and lately mp3s. I get headaches with the mp3s. I put on vinyl and it just sounds good, almost soothing. No science, just my impression.
> 
> But...I like the portability of CDs, and yet hate having to change those too. I prefer mp3's now in the car, and at home. If I'm tooling around I use mp3s, when I do have time to listen (evening) I prefer the experience and sound of the LPs.


There are scientific, and other, reasons to explain this, VG.

For many people digital sounds bright and fatiguing. Especially so when compared to vinyl. There are actually reasons for this. Here is my take having spent a ton of time, not to mention money, analyzing things the last 30 years as an audiophile hobbyist.

On the vinyl side. I copied this from my previous post in #29. I share the same belief of many fellow audiophiles that it is the distortion and colourations inherent in vinyl playback that people enjoy most. They hear the distortion of the record walls and tracking distortions, of the needle scrapping along the groove, of the arm/cartridge distortions added, of the tables rumble not to mention wow and flutter and all the other analog artifacts that are present in a heavily mechanical process for the transmission of sound. When that info is no longer available to them (ie they play a CD) they miss it. 

On the digital side, more often than not the CD being listened too was horribly (re)mastered with anything but hi fidelity in mind and/or was "digitized" using inferior analog to digital converters. I find that most commercially available digital offerings these days is horribly recorded, usually terribly compressed or very loudly mastered or, almost always, both. And those older CD's that you might have, say those of the classic rock era, all of them were digitalized with gawd awful sounding ADC's that were in theri infancy and which did a horrible job of capturing all of the good that was on those original masters. 

If your reference sound is based on vinyl, then both of these elements would be, rightly, shown as a serious liability. But, if you were to grab hold of a top recording, done with proper mastering and recorded with top gear, with the goal of high quality sound as a result, you'll know that the medium itself isn't to blame for the sound issues. Many of these recordings are reference level material in terms of sound quality and show all of the good that can come of the CD medium. But you require top gear to show it off in all of its glory. Far too few people have this opportunity to hear it as so unfortunately. 

- Kerry


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Milkman said:


> I think the argument that vinyl sounds better than MP3 is stating the obvious.
> 
> 
> The benefit to MP3 is accessability and convenience.
> ...


The other thing to consider is how you're playing back the music. If the system you're using is not capable of reproducing the media to its fullest, then what difference does it make how good the media sounds? I can take an original master of an Elvis Sun-era record and play it back through some computer speakers and guess what? It's gonna sound like a turd.

If you're listening mostly to cheap headphones through a portable media player, or through mass-market computer speakers, you may as well stick with plain-jane mp3s, because you wouldn't notice an improvement in source recordings anyway.

I use Shure in-ear-monitors for my iPod (I want to go back to Etymotics, which I had before but they broke - they were flat out amazing) and I get a really decent sound out of mp3s encoded at the V0 setting through LAME. I've tried some Apple Lossless files, and to be quite honest, I don't get the sense that they're better enough to warrant all the extra space they take up. Again, it all depends on what sort of listening you're doing and whether you are content with what you have or not.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> The other thing to consider is how you're playing back the music. If the system you're using is not capable of reproducing the media to its fullest, then what difference does it make how good the media sounds? I can take an original master of an Elvis Sun-era record and play it back through some computer speakers and guess what? It's gonna sound like a turd.
> 
> If you're listening mostly to cheap headphones through a portable media player, or through mass-market computer speakers, you may as well stick with plain-jane mp3s, because you wouldn't notice an improvement in source recordings anyway.
> 
> I use Shure in-ear-monitors for my iPod (I want to go back to Etymotics, which I had before but they broke - they were flat out amazing) and I get a really decent sound out of mp3s encoded at the V0 setting through LAME. I've tried some Apple Lossless files, and to be quite honest, I don't get the sense that they're better enough to warrant all the extra space they take up. Again, it all depends on what sort of listening you're doing and whether you are content with what you have or not.



The first thing I did when I bought my latest iPod was to put the stock ear buds in a drawer and buy a decent set. I tried buds ranging from $20 to $100 and in terms of sound quality the ones I went with were $40 Panasonics. The difference between these and the Apple ear buds is fundamental.


----------



## Tigger25 (Jun 10, 2021)

mhammer said:


> There is something to be said for *lack* of fidelity as well, when it comes to rock and roll.
> 
> One of the most disappointing musical experiences of my life was walking into the old Phantasmagoria record store on Park Avenue near Sherbrooke in Montreal, many many years ago, and hearing "Brown Sugar" on a decent stereo for the first time. I was so accustomed to hearing it on the radio that when the instruments were individually discernible, I simply could not get past the wimpy acoustic guitar strumming in the back of the opening chordal chunking. It went from a powerful rock experience to a folksy strum-along. Bleccchhh!!
> 
> Sometimes fidelity is the enemy.


Oh man I definitely visited Phantasmagoria in its time! The Cheap Thrills downtown was great as well...Montreal used to have some fantastic used vinyl/book stores. I am pretty sure I bought Pyromania at Phantasmagoria...


----------

