I found this very long but interesting video.
http://philoctetes.org/Past_Programs/Deep_Listening_Why_Audio_Quality_Matters
http://philoctetes.org/Past_Programs/Deep_Listening_Why_Audio_Quality_Matters
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Do you think that vinyl is making a comeback?
- Thread starter Travisx2112
- Start date
Well, (without reading the thread), I'm proud to say I own more Vinyl than CDs and don't even own an MP3 player.
I'm the only guy in school that weird.
I'm the only guy in school that weird.
Thanks for posting that! Excellent video! A few things stuck out to me, mostly what was discussed in passing.
* I did not know that the USB turntables were so bad, but it does not surprise me at all. I can't imagine that they have a decent cartridge or analog to digital converter in them. The guy who mentioned how you can get yourself some half decent equipment for recording vinyl to CD for about the just a little more money than the USB table package was absolutely right. Sure, a decent table, cart, sound card, and phono preamp is going to cost more than the all-in-one USB turntable, but if my experience is any indicator, you can achieve fantastic results burning CDs from vinyl.
* Someone mentioned that they had CDs that they had made from records that sounded better than the store bought CDs. I am a big fan of the Paul McCartney record "Venus and Mars". I had bought the LP used in the early 90s at my local used record store. I remember at one time I compared the original Capital CD of that album versus a MiniDisc copy of the LP and was surprised that even in my car the MiniDisc copy of the record sounded a million times better than the (Mid-80s master) awful CD. I gave the CD to my brother and bought the Steve Hoffman mastered DCC Gold disc which sounds wonderful.
I've always used very good analog-to-digital converters when mastering CDs from my LPs. I've done hundreds of them as I never replaced my perfectly good LPs with CD in the 80s and 90s. I've had similar experience; my CDs mastered from my LPs consistently sound fantastic. The lynch pin in the process, assuming a decent table/cart/stylus, is the analog-to-digital conversion.
Makes me want to pull out some of the DVD-As and SACDs that I didn't sell off. I remember when I first listened to the SACD of "Kind Of Blue". Wow. The 96/24 DAD of Cannonball Adderly's "Something Else" gave me that "Miles is in the room" feeling that they describe.
So! I just dug up my parent's old turntable/stereo receiver/etc. and hooked it all up. Sounds fantastic (the radio, at least). However... the belt on the turntable has deteriorated (it's 25-30 years old, and hasn't been used in at least half that number of years).
I should just be able to pick up a new belt easy-as, right?
And if anyone has a picture of what it's supposed to look like with the belt attached, that'd be great (I'm making an assumption that all turntables [at least old ones] look the same in that area).
Thanks!
I've got some of my parent's old vinyls, and I ordered a couple of contemporary ones to start off my own collection.
I should just be able to pick up a new belt easy-as, right?
And if anyone has a picture of what it's supposed to look like with the belt attached, that'd be great (I'm making an assumption that all turntables [at least old ones] look the same in that area).Thanks!
I've got some of my parent's old vinyls, and I ordered a couple of contemporary ones to start off my own collection.
i was suprised few weeks ago to find in a music shop several Metallica album in vinyl format, including their last "death magnetic"
I thought that vinyls were not produced anymore, except perhaps for some kind of specific music for DJ's..
I much prefer Cds for the convenience, and the difference in sound never bothered me.
I thought that vinyls were not produced anymore, except perhaps for some kind of specific music for DJ's..
I much prefer Cds for the convenience, and the difference in sound never bothered me.
That is one of DCC's better sounding disc's. I have it as well since it's one of my fave McCartney albums. The box anniversary set of Band on the Run is quite good as well. Not DCC though.
Cheers,
BT
No...most music is being pressed on vinyl these days. You can even get Britanny Spears on vinyl if you so desire.
Cheers,
BT
I should just be able to pick up a new belt easy-as, right?
Thanks!
Well first you need to know the make and model of your TT. Then you can get a belt online. Almost every table still has belts available somewhere.
Check needle doctor for one...or just google turntable belts. It's a pretty basic task installing it.
Good luck with your new venture. Just ask if you need any other help.
Cheers,
BT
My thoughts (sorry for the long post). Please don't think I'm doing anything other than just expressing an opinion here. YMMV et cetera...
I like the nostalgia aspects of vinyl, especially the album artwork. And I like to be able to transfer vinyl to CD occasionally (I do this through my Tascam interface, usually using Sound Forge).
I disagree strongly with the idea that digital formats such as mp3 are ONLY for the casual listener. Sure, the convenience is a major factor, but to pretend that the quality is so low that one can't enjoy the music properly is just plain untrue. If that were the case, any recording made on 4 or 8 track facilities back in the 60's would not be worth listening to.
"No point trying to enjoy 'Sgt Pepper' or 'Pet Sounds' in anything other than a casual way, the quality isn't good enough for the serious listener." Er... no. I respectfully disagree. Some of the most serious listening I ever did in my formative years was on a crappy Dansette record player. That didn't stop me digging the music more than words can say, something that's stayed with me all my life. Oh, I was a serious listener even back then.
A week or so ago I tried a little A/B/C test. I set up an LP on my trusty Pioneer turntable with Audio Technica cartridge (yeah, I know it's not the best setup, but read on). I put a CD in my Sony CD player. And I started up Winamp on my lap top. And I listened to several tracks from Pete Gabriel's album "So" (including Sledgehammer and Big Time). I then tried the same for some other recordings I'd got available in all three formats (some John McLaughlin stuff, some early Level 42 funk, some Paul Young stuff with Pino on bass...) and generally played around a bit. All the sources were playing through my Rotel amp (and NAD phono preamp for the LP), JBL monitors and Mission sub.
The outcome? First, let me state that I know my hearing may be shot from playing in loud bands for 30 years, and that everybody hears differently. So these are my own personal findings and, as ever, ymmv.
CD vs. vinyl - very minor differences. Maybe a little more "clinical" sound with the CDs, a little less "organic" perhaps? But I'm well aware of the power of suggestion and it was me working the input source switch. The only differences I could be really sure about were lower noise floor and slightly higher output from the CD setup, so I kept having to gain match when switching as best I could. Like I said, there were differences there, but they were pretty minor. Now and then I had to double check the source and level settings on the amp to see which I was listening to. Both sounded great to me.
mp3 - also sounded great. Low noise, clear, I could hear everything going on just fine, et cetera. I'm not going to comment on things like stereo sound stage because such stuff doesn't mean a lot to me. It was, as I said, very clear, all instruments were apparent and easy to pick out, frequency balance was good across the full range - I mean, this is a great sounding setup! The only difference I really noticed when switching back and forth was some compression that was apparent on the mp3s. Did that make them sound bad? Not really, imo. I'd be happier without it, but it didn't stop me enjoying the music.
So, there it is. CD and vinyl pretty much share the honours and mp3 is a very respectable close 2nd. I guess that's why I always say I listen to the music rather than the equipment. Sure, I could probably hear a difference between my gear and a £50,000 setup, but the difference just wouldn't be big enough for me to get excited about. I can hear my music and enjoy it just fine, thanks, same as always. Even when I'm being serious.
I like the nostalgia aspects of vinyl, especially the album artwork. And I like to be able to transfer vinyl to CD occasionally (I do this through my Tascam interface, usually using Sound Forge).
I disagree strongly with the idea that digital formats such as mp3 are ONLY for the casual listener. Sure, the convenience is a major factor, but to pretend that the quality is so low that one can't enjoy the music properly is just plain untrue. If that were the case, any recording made on 4 or 8 track facilities back in the 60's would not be worth listening to.
"No point trying to enjoy 'Sgt Pepper' or 'Pet Sounds' in anything other than a casual way, the quality isn't good enough for the serious listener." Er... no. I respectfully disagree. Some of the most serious listening I ever did in my formative years was on a crappy Dansette record player. That didn't stop me digging the music more than words can say, something that's stayed with me all my life. Oh, I was a serious listener even back then.
A week or so ago I tried a little A/B/C test. I set up an LP on my trusty Pioneer turntable with Audio Technica cartridge (yeah, I know it's not the best setup, but read on). I put a CD in my Sony CD player. And I started up Winamp on my lap top. And I listened to several tracks from Pete Gabriel's album "So" (including Sledgehammer and Big Time). I then tried the same for some other recordings I'd got available in all three formats (some John McLaughlin stuff, some early Level 42 funk, some Paul Young stuff with Pino on bass...) and generally played around a bit. All the sources were playing through my Rotel amp (and NAD phono preamp for the LP), JBL monitors and Mission sub.
The outcome? First, let me state that I know my hearing may be shot from playing in loud bands for 30 years, and that everybody hears differently. So these are my own personal findings and, as ever, ymmv.
CD vs. vinyl - very minor differences. Maybe a little more "clinical" sound with the CDs, a little less "organic" perhaps? But I'm well aware of the power of suggestion and it was me working the input source switch. The only differences I could be really sure about were lower noise floor and slightly higher output from the CD setup, so I kept having to gain match when switching as best I could. Like I said, there were differences there, but they were pretty minor. Now and then I had to double check the source and level settings on the amp to see which I was listening to. Both sounded great to me.
mp3 - also sounded great. Low noise, clear, I could hear everything going on just fine, et cetera. I'm not going to comment on things like stereo sound stage because such stuff doesn't mean a lot to me. It was, as I said, very clear, all instruments were apparent and easy to pick out, frequency balance was good across the full range - I mean, this is a great sounding setup! The only difference I really noticed when switching back and forth was some compression that was apparent on the mp3s. Did that make them sound bad? Not really, imo. I'd be happier without it, but it didn't stop me enjoying the music.
So, there it is. CD and vinyl pretty much share the honours and mp3 is a very respectable close 2nd. I guess that's why I always say I listen to the music rather than the equipment. Sure, I could probably hear a difference between my gear and a £50,000 setup, but the difference just wouldn't be big enough for me to get excited about. I can hear my music and enjoy it just fine, thanks, same as always. Even when I'm being serious.
I'm having a bit of trouble finding the belt I need for my turntable. I found four numbers on the back of the turntable, and I think the bolded one is the model number, but if so, I can't find anywhere that I can match it. I've found models that are literally one number off, in the ones place, but no luck on an exact match.
28670
C984-40445
58061115
K709115
It's an old Sears brand.
28670
C984-40445
58061115
K709115
It's an old Sears brand.
Got a pic? I beleive that Panasonic/Technics OEMed a lot of stuff for Sears, Montgomery Ward, and other department stores in the late 70s and early 80s.
This doesn't really make sense to me. Analog tape recording technology in the 50s and 60s was routinely and easily capable of much higher quality than modern CD audio is capable of. I've got LPs, 96/24 DADs, SACDs and even CDs of 50s jazz recordings in my collection that sound absolutely astounding; easily as good as something recorded yesterday.I disagree strongly with the idea that digital formats such as mp3 are ONLY for the casual listener. Sure, the convenience is a major factor, but to pretend that the quality is so low that one can't enjoy the music properly is just plain untrue. If that were the case, any recording made on 4 or 8 track facilities back in the 60's would not be worth listening to.
"No point trying to enjoy 'Sgt Pepper' or 'Pet Sounds' in anything other than a casual way, the quality isn't good enough for the serious listener." Er... no. I respectfully disagree. Some of the most serious listening I ever did in my formative years was on a crappy Dansette record player. That didn't stop me digging the music more than words can say, something that's stayed with me all my life. Oh, I was a serious listener even back then.
MP3 is a "necessary evil" IMO, but comparing a compressed modern recording with an older recording doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Vinyl has never stopped being produced especially in the metal / punk / hardcore circles.
that's the truth...
i've got some from the mid/late 90s (crimson curse/orchid) up through now...
everything from Melt Banana to a Pastorius record that was given to me for Christmas this year (very happy about that) to Mingus and back to Dillinger Escape Plan...
happily...vinyl never went away...
it just stagnated a bit for a while with the more mainstream audience.
[spunj13]
Started collecting them myself few year back.
Always on the look out for new ones.
So I'd say yeah
Always on the look out for new ones.
So I'd say yeah
I do take your point, Phil. I know some simple recordings made on earlier machines were of excellent quality - including some direct to disc stuff. I'm old enough to remember when audiophiles wanted to buy direct to disc recordings purely for the quality, because it was far superior to the newfangled stuff that went to tape before being sent off to waggle the cutting room needle. My point about 4 and 8 track stuff in the 60s was really referring to the extensive bouncing and re-bouncing that had to be done in order to multitrack stuff like Sgt Pepper. Some of the material on that album could hardly be called "hi-fi" and yet it's a classic. But I think I understand what you're saying about the comparison - the quality factors I mention above cropped up during the multitracking process rather than being due to the choice of medium later on. Maybe it was a bad analogy (no bad pun about analogue quality intended herephilbiker said:
).I would be interested in any technical data that illustrates the differences between analogue and digital recordings, though, at least at present. In what ways are 1950's tape recordings superior to CDs? Frequency response? Signal to noise ratio? Harmonic or IM distortion? It's an interesting question. I believe we're pretty much on the "cusp" for digital quality at the moment. Twenty years ago we were sampling 8 seconds of sound into 256 or 512 kB. Now we're using megabytes to store a few minutes of music. When that gets up towards gigabytes (and it almost certainly will) we'll be looking at massive sample rates, zero compression - digital quality should continue to get better and better, shouldn't it? Just ten years from now, things will have changed totally, if past experience is any indicator.
Please note I'm not saying that there are zero differences between vinyl, mp3, CD or whatever. The differences are there and I can hear them, even though they don't bother me much. I understand that other folks will notice or care more. My point was just this; the fact that some of us aren't as bothered as others because we perceive the differences as fairly minor doesn't mean we aren't serious about listening to our music.
EDIT I remember reading some article in a hi-fi mag years back (HFNRR I think, probably mid 70s) about how musicians were often less picky about their sound reproduction gear than non-musos, and went on to speculate that this could be because their sense of musicality meant they were able to extract more from the music at lower levels of fidelity. Sort of "filling in the gaps", I suppose. I wasn't totally convinced myself, but it does support my point about not having to be a high end audio gear buff to be a serious listener.
I'm currently listening to a Tears For Fears album that I ripped from CD to mp3 at pretty high quality, can't remember the exact settings I was using then for bitrate and stuff. System is Dell Laptop running Winamp > Tascam interface > Rotel amp > Sennheiser phones. I can only describe the sound quality as excellent and I really don't think anybody could say that it was impossible to listen to "seriously".
yeah, the difference (aside from the seperate mastering for the different mediums) is pretty minor. It's all subjective in regards to what sounds "good" really. I don't buy vinyl because I don't have a decent record player, but I have always been drawn to it because of the physical aspects of the medium. Nothing wrong with liking vinyl, nothing wrong with liking CDs, and nothing wrong with liking mp3s. It's not a contest, it's music.
^^^ Spot on.
Just for interest, I went and put on the LP of the Tears For Fears album (Song From The Big Chair), synced it with Winamp and matched gain as best I could, and then did a vinyl vs. mp3 comparison. I thought the phones might show up differences a bit more. It was interesting.
1) Most obvious difference was the mp3 was brighter overall, perhaps because the CD it was ripped from was mastered that way? Or maybe I just have a warm sounding cartridge? Dunno. As for which was better in this respect - that would be personal preference and I guess that's what EQ is for anyway.
2) Some rumble noticeable on very quiet sections with the LP, some compression apparent here and there on mp3. Neither bothered me in the slightest really.
3) This is perhaps the interesting one. There was definitely more detail apparent high up with the LP (like triangles and fancy hi-hat patterns), despite the apparent brightness of the mp3. I guess the high end on the mp3 is more forward but doesn't extend quite so high as the vinyl. Hmmmm. It took a while for me to really notice this and I had to switch back and forth repeatedly to be really sure, which shows how subtle this difference was.
Overall - again, some differences, but pretty minor really. Both sounded great anyway. I'd find it hard to choose overall on quality, but the vinyl probably just shaded it. But convenience is, of course, another thing and not really a fair comparison. Just as I type this I have to go and turn the blasted LP over...
I'd try the CD only it's packed away upstairs and I can't be bothered.
Just for interest, I went and put on the LP of the Tears For Fears album (Song From The Big Chair), synced it with Winamp and matched gain as best I could, and then did a vinyl vs. mp3 comparison. I thought the phones might show up differences a bit more. It was interesting.
1) Most obvious difference was the mp3 was brighter overall, perhaps because the CD it was ripped from was mastered that way? Or maybe I just have a warm sounding cartridge? Dunno. As for which was better in this respect - that would be personal preference and I guess that's what EQ is for anyway.
2) Some rumble noticeable on very quiet sections with the LP, some compression apparent here and there on mp3. Neither bothered me in the slightest really.
3) This is perhaps the interesting one. There was definitely more detail apparent high up with the LP (like triangles and fancy hi-hat patterns), despite the apparent brightness of the mp3. I guess the high end on the mp3 is more forward but doesn't extend quite so high as the vinyl. Hmmmm. It took a while for me to really notice this and I had to switch back and forth repeatedly to be really sure, which shows how subtle this difference was.
Overall - again, some differences, but pretty minor really. Both sounded great anyway. I'd find it hard to choose overall on quality, but the vinyl probably just shaded it. But convenience is, of course, another thing and not really a fair comparison. Just as I type this I have to go and turn the blasted LP over...
I'd try the CD only it's packed away upstairs and I can't be bothered.
This is getting weird now.
I noticed on the last track of the Tears for Fears album that L and R channels were reversed when switching from mp3 to LP. So I tried another LP / mp3 ripped from CD that I was able to compare (Climie Fisher's "Everything"). L and R were the same on both!
How on Earth have the channels got swapped on the first example but not the second? Very strange.
I noticed on the last track of the Tears for Fears album that L and R channels were reversed when switching from mp3 to LP. So I tried another LP / mp3 ripped from CD that I was able to compare (Climie Fisher's "Everything"). L and R were the same on both!
How on Earth have the channels got swapped on the first example but not the second? Very strange.
