Are you an analog audiophile or digital?

[ozymango]

Another way to look at it... what the "resolution" of CD? one 'bit' of a .wav has a height (1/2^16), and length (1/44,100 of a second long)... What the "resolution" of vinyl? The size of the vinyl molecule/atom.

You had me all the way to here, then I got lost. What's the physical size of a vinyl molecule got to do with audio "resolution," whatever that means? If you're talking frequency response, I can guarantee that I can get a wider dynamic range out of newer technologies than I can with vinyl -- but so what?

I'm coming at this from the "friendly flaming" point of view, where I figure we're just talking about why we enjoy different things for certain reasons without casting aspersions on others, so I hope you take my ruminations in that spirit.

Definitely vinyl and digital are different, and there are cool/fun things about each one, but the "advantages" of analog media are a bit relative, though not to be dismissed lightly. An analog recording on vinyl is a groove that you can figure out how to "hear" if you just drop a needle on the disc, so in the future it'll be pretty easy to keep playing back such a recording, and pretty easy for people who've never even heard of an LP or turntable to figure out how to hear the record ("there's this groove, and I stuck a pin in it and I got back a vibration, let's see if there's intelligible conversation recorded there!"). Sorta like what I guess Sagan and NASA were hoping for when they put a gold record on Voyager.

But analog recording of video is a bit different -- it's pretty hard to tell, just by looking at it or using non-technologically advanced methods, how a video is layed down on a Beta tape. All you see is that analog surface, the tape media, and what kind of circuitry is needed to get back that information?

I do understand your point about an LP, but being the complete theme is analog vs. digital, not all analog formats are any easier to recover than digital ones. True, mechanical tape recordings have shown historical ability to be recovered years from now, but if you kept a computer hard drive stored in ideal storage conditions (as you would store any magnetic media), recovering the data in the future should be a wash.

As for how to recover that digital/analog recording in the future, I figure we'll have the same chance to recover a digital DVD as a Beta I video. :P

But as far as the special enjoyment you find in an LP versus other media ... that's what art is all about!

[ozymango]

Back in the early CD days, they made a big deal of AAD, ADD, DAD, DDD etc.

Yeah, but this is an important point to note for a reason not yet mentioned: Every time you copy an analog recording, you have signal loss (or at least some kind of change). It's analagous (if you'll pardon the pun!) to going from YC, to composite, back to YC, in a VCR to TV connection, every time you "change" the stream, you're inviting signal degradation.

Which is why we edit in DV and don't convert until the final DVD, we don't wanna downgrade the quality. And in a way today, the goal in both music and video editing is, in essense, "DDD," meaning we keep the stream clean from source, to edit, to final output, only "transcoding" (from one digital format to another, in this case) at the end.

I don't know how much of a practical difference it made in sound recordings on CD, but I appreciate the theory behind it.

[akrako1]

Another way to look at it... what the "resolution" of CD? one 'bit' of a .wav has a height (1/2^16), and length (1/44,100 of a second long)... What the "resolution" of vinyl? The size of the vinyl molecule/atom.

I was referring to the way that the actual sound wave is represented in digital and analog. A digital wave is made up of a grid - each grid piece has a dimension - it's 'height' is determined by the bit-depth, and it's length is determined by the sampling rate. These rectangles are put one after the other, in an attempt to reproduce a smooth wave. For analog lps, (in it's most pure sense - think edison talking into the horn), the sound wave etches a corresponding wave into the vinyl surface. The accuracy/smoothness of this wave is limited by the actual molecule size of the media it's being etched into.

[ozymango]

These rectangles are put one after the other, in an attempt to reproduce a smooth wave. For analog lps, (in it's most pure sense - think edison talking into the horn), the sound wave etches a corresponding wave into the vinyl surface. The accuracy/smoothness of this wave is limited by the actual molecule size of the media it's being etched into.

Ah, got it. And yeah, your standard CD sampling rate, though good, has some serious limitations to the audiophile's ear, whilst a good LP can eek out more "sound," however you wanna put it.

But that's only for standard CDs -- if we open up the floor to all digital audio recordings, then it gets harder for LPs to keep up. Aside from the "warmth" factor, which, while I appreciate that other people feel it, just isn't an issue for me. CDs rule!!!

[TheFamilyMan]

It's true: both digital AND analog recordings are approximations of the recorded material. Just go ask any serious EE. And on top of that, electronic amplication is an approximation of the amplified signal. It's all just a matter of the fidelity of the approximation. CDs sound harsh mostly because most CD players sound harsh. LPs sound "tinny" mostly because most cartridges/preamps sound tinny. With the right equipment (and proper recording mastering), either format will create sonic nirvana.

[Des]

Iam gung-ho digital out of pure laziness. I have always had a habit of stacking things on top of my turntable which meant that every time I wanted to use it I would have to move the pile on top to some other spot and eventually I created lots of pockets of piled up junk.
When CDs came out I was like, 'wow, the drawer slides out and I don't have to move my crap!'

It's also easier to rip songs off of CD to put onto another CD or mp3 player to use in the car or wherever. So, again I attribute this liking to my laziness.

My laziness has also made me re-purchase a lot of my collection on CDs in order to foster the laziness. At one time I had 700 albums (LP disk), I now have about 200 still, and about 900 CDs.

Thing I miss the most about vinyl is the packaging, I have some wonderfull gatefold and multifold covers (Hawkwind - 'In Search of Space'). Fortunately I don't need a turntable to enjoy these.

So, sign me up in binary as a digital guy!

--dES

[SingSing]

sigh.. '1' went to the darkside.

[SingSing]

Anyone using digital speakers?

Good point, any one prefer digital ( aka class-d, aka switching ) amplifer over analog amplifier ?

If you have a $200.00 DVD player with surround amp with speakers in a box, then you most likely own a digital ampilfier system. Does it sound better than a $200.00 boom box ?

[dcsos]

Hawkwind - 'In Search of Space'
featuring their spaced out dancer!

I saw them live ANALOG at NY's academy of music in the 70's
with Stacia dancing nude

The first digital recording I ever heard was made on a HONEYWELL INSTRUMENTATION
recorder
in the 70's
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/stockham.html

[edDV]

Back in the early CD days, they made a big deal of AAD, ADD, DAD, DDD etc.

Yeah, but this is an important point to note for a reason not yet mentioned: Every time you copy an analog recording, you have signal loss (or at least some kind of change). It's analagous (if you'll pardon the pun!) to going from YC, to composite, back to YC, in a VCR to TV connection, every time you "change" the stream, you're inviting signal degradation.

Which is why we edit in DV and don't convert until the final DVD, we don't wanna downgrade the quality. And in a way today, the goal in both music and video editing is, in essense, "DDD," meaning we keep the stream clean from source, to edit, to final output, only "transcoding" (from one digital format to another, in this case) at the end.

I don't know how much of a practical difference it made in sound recordings on CD, but I appreciate the theory behind it.

Yes but the DDD issues are similar. 16bit audio is OK for distribution but has limited dynamic range for acquisition. 24bit for acquisition makes for a good 16 bit release.

Likewise in video, distribution remains 8 bit per component (RGB24 or 4:2:2) but acquisition has stepped up from 9 to 10 to 12 and now 14bit per component for digital movie production. Run of the mill broadcast is uncompressed 10bit SDI.

8bit is ok for distribution but tight for processing.

[dadrab]

It sounds like I'm the only one around this thread with a consistantly operating turntable. Fact is, I have two.

One is hooked to my audio/video system to rip vinyl to hard drive. The other proudly occupies its slot in the entertainment center and is an integral part of my stereo system.

[dcsos]

Any one try one of those USB to COMPUTER Turntables (ion et al)?
It's analog to digital in one setup! Does the software create tracks automatically? or detect silence at all?

[ozymango]

It sounds like I'm the only one around this thread with a consistantly operating turntable. Fact is, I have two.

I've got three turntables, of which two work. The turntable with the broken belt (the one that doesn't work) is one I bought myself new, about 25 years ago (yikes!), and the other two were given me by people who said, "Hey, I don't want this, got any use for it?"

I just don't have the physical room to connect a turntable in the front room, and even if I did (have space on my TV/video shelf), there are center speakers on that shelf and who wants to put a turntable where it's gonna pick up speaker sound and vibration? So the turntable is in the "computer" room, where it sits, piled with stuff (I'm like you, Des! ) until I need to turn an LP into a CD, which I never actually have gotten around to doing in the last ten years anyway ... :P

[Lucifers_Ghost]

I am totally digital now but I still keep the turntable and cassette deck in the garage just in case.
I get a kick when I go to A/V forums and some audiophiles still prefer tube amps over solid state.

This all depends on what you are talking about. Its all relative.

In terms of musical amps (ie. Fender, Marshall), I will choose my amp depending on the sound I want. If I want to hammer out some metallica, I'll take a solid state amp hands down. But to blues it up, tube amps are the shit.

OT .. digital all the way. I dont have a cassette player or a turntable anymore. I have a vcr somewhere .. I think.

[hech54]

Beauty is in the ear of the beholder. For strictly convenience sake...digital all the way. I have two turntables...I think they are in the basement...
What LP's I owned that were not released to CD...I transfered to CD already and never looked back or longed to have a recording on LP instead of CD.

[dcsos]

I have a THORENS TD-124 with SME Arm & Shure cartridge and a REK-O-KUT with Fairchild Arm and Grado Cartridge

The Thorens plays 78rpm and 16rpm (spoken word) in addition to 33 & 45

The Rek-o-Kut handles 14" transcription discs (how the king biscuit hour was shipped to radio stations on 14" disc to big to play on a standard tunrtable)

[RabidDog]

Other option Both analogue and Digital (plus cassette, good quality recordings on good quality tapes can be pretty dam good) I am mostly digital but still have access to a good turntable with good cartridge Dual/ortofon. I am still sometime getting around to converting my LP's and cassettes to digital .

I always really wanted a linn lp12 quad33/303 with spendor Bc1 speakers

Oh and valve amps really do kick arse, krell monoblocks x 2

[lordsmurf]

MP3, radio, vinyl records ... I mean, really, I don't care. As long as the music is free of noise (cracks, pops, hiss, compression noise). I listen to whatever format is available. If it sucks, I'll convert to CD-Audio and fix it along the way, remove the flaws.

[BJ_M]

Other option Both analogue and Digital (plus cassette, good quality recordings on good quality tapes can be pretty dam good) I am mostly digital but still have access to a good turntable with good cartridge Dual/ortofon. I am still sometime getting around to converting my LP's and cassettes to digital .

I always really wanted a linn lp12 quad33/303 with spendor Bc1 speakers

Oh and valve amps really do kick arse, krell monoblocks x 2

Krell has never been a valve amp .... class A , yes ..
.... i still have a krell KSA100 from quite a few years ago ... with a spectral dmc-10 preamp

[Radixmind]

have to get in on this one!

i voted for 'mix' of analogue and digital, because, regardless of how you cut it, these days most recordings in any format are a representation of a mixture of both analogue and digitally sourced or reproduced sounds. even the latest Pink Floyd Vinyl is mostly digital, before it gets to the actual disc pressing stage. where are your purist analogue pretensions then?

i spend quite a bit of my money these days re-buying most of my record collection, which is great for the record company but not for my bank balance. Remasters of great albums can sound fantastic, or can sound like an excercise in minimal effort for maximum cash. the key is the availability or quality of the original Master tapes. classic albums like the Led Zeppelin back catalogue sound fantastic because Jimmy Page kept all his masters in his shed at home (this didnt stop the record company releasing their first round of Zep remasters from poor studio copies though). later albums, predominantly from the 80's when digital recording and sampling was in it's infancy, can sound weak and thin by comparison. it's disturbing how many times an artists back catalogue can be remastered and reissued until somebody gets it right.

Digital Is great, but our ears are analogue, and our brains NEED some linear time...time to just relax and listen to the music we love...to let it penetrate and move us.... this is more important than what format it's in. sadly, i dont see much of that happening anymore, and i cant help but think the technology is partly responsible for that. i recently got myself a personal music player - i have about a hundred of my favourite albums on there now, and then there's downloads etc. it's a terrific thing and i wouldnt be without it, but i rarely actually LISTEN to music now, because all i do is upload it, download it, transfer it, mix it, convert it, burn it.... somehow, all the flexibility options with music has taken a lot of the time, and pleasure from simply putting on a favourite album and listening.

so choose your favourite format, be it 8-track or SACD, but for god's sake take time to LISTEN.

[AlecWest]

I'm in the "don't care" category. Music is far less a part of my life than it used to be. It isn't that I don't like music, I do. I like all genres of music except for two -- disco and rap music. And, my hearing at age 57 ain't what it used to be ... so I would be the last person to notice a difference between a good analog recording and a digital recording.

[akrako1]

As a musician also, I have to mention the satisfaction of having your music pressed onto vinyl. There's just something permanent about it. Somehow, having a cd (even a pressed one) isn't as satisfying...

My last $.02 on the topic...

[dadrab]

I have to agree with Radixmind.

I have to force myself away from the computer and into my truck to seriously LISTEN to music these days.

It used to be that a new record or even disc (before the days of instant internet gratification and CD burning) was a new adventure. Not so much so now.

I'll go insane without tunes, so that isn't even a blip on my radar, but we have to take time to "smell the roses" as it were...

Just having music to mask background white noise isn't enough.

Digital or analogue - make time to listen to the music; to appreciate the styles; to figure out how his fingers move so fast; to appreciate how he/she gets that vocal timbre; to enjoy an odd, syncopated rythm...

Just listen...

[TheFamilyMan]

Originally released in 1978, and one of my first classical CDs:
http://www.amazon.com/Moussorgsky-Night-Mountain-Pictures-Exhibition/dp/B000003CSH
Still sonically spectactular, it even has a warning that the dynamic range may clip your amp and damage your speakers.

Perfect example of an LP mastered to a CD:
http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Robert-Drasnin/dp/B0000059YI/ref=sr_1_5/105-9001035-03404...1340030&sr=1-5
Amazingly, if played on the right equipment, it captures the essence of that creamy valve recorded sound played back on a top-rate turntable system.

Bottom line: if you enjoy music, enjoy it where you are at. My teenage son doesn't give a shit about my hifi as long as he can listen to his iPod, and that's OK.

[NiteLite]

Digital Is great, but our ears are analogue, and our brains NEED some linear time...time to just relax and listen to the music we love...to let it penetrate and move us.... this is more important than what format it's in. sadly, i dont see much of that happening anymore, and i cant help but think the technology is partly responsible for that. i recently got myself a personal music player - i have about a hundred of my favourite albums on there now, and then there's downloads etc. it's a terrific thing and i wouldnt be without it, but i rarely actually LISTEN to music now, because all i do is upload it, download it, transfer it, mix it, convert it, burn it.... somehow, all the flexibility options with music has taken a lot of the time, and pleasure from simply putting on a favourite album and listening.
so choose your favourite format, be it 8-track or SACD, but for god's sake take time to LISTEN.

I have to agree with Radixmind.
I have to force myself away from the computer and into my truck to seriously LISTEN to music these days.
It used to be that a new record or even disc (before the days of instant internet gratification and CD burning) was a new adventure. Not so much so now.
I'll go insane without tunes, so that isn't even a blip on my radar, but we have to take time to "smell the roses" as it were...
Just having music to mask background white noise isn't enough.
Digital or analogue - make time to listen to the music; to appreciate the styles; to figure out how his fingers move so fast; to appreciate how he/she gets that vocal timbre; to enjoy an odd, syncopated rythm...
Just listen...

Now that's telling it like it is. Sad but very true.
I often wonder what happen to the good old days of just sitting back and really enjoying some good music whether analog or digital. You guys explain a lot of the causes and effects. Really made me sit back and think about it.
I will say that one other factor is cost. I just recently paid $19.00 for a multi-channel SACD and the producer really sucked. No re-mastering, no clean-up, nothing but going from 2-channel to 5-channel. That hurts. If the people creating - mixing, mastering, etc. - couldn't care less what the final results sounds like it's hard to flop down $20. for about 38 minutes of a very bad quality sound.
Good reading worth quoting and rereading. Thanks.
Regards,
NL

To the the program producer and mixer, Glyn Johns, you really suck at your job and I suggest to get out of the business and find something that requires no concern about the end result.
(Just in case you read at VH)

[EddyH]

Digital, baby, at least for convenience, sound quality, features, portability, resilience, longevity....... etc.

Though a little bit of me, that grew up in the 80s and only had it's first taste of silver discs at about 10 years old, still has a warm heart for various analogue things. I have records I've bought as special editions or 7"-only that I can't play because the only turntable in the house is busted. And my car still runs on cassettes, many of which I still don't have a corresponding CD for - which is why I need to replace my 13-ish year old stereo quite soon, so I can still get one with a decent (or maybe two decent) cassette decks on it before they're phased out for good. I'm even considering seperates, with a mix... a nice, basic CD player, a good tape deck (with line-out, for recording into PC - or maybe even make that CD player a CD recorder with a TOSlink), 3-band analogue (PLL) and DAB tuner, amp with a couple-or-three extra Aux inputs (including a 5.1 / digital) and an entry level yet respectable turntable on the top.

In a perfect world with lots of cash of course.

Even with a 20gb mp3 player (no, it's not a sodding iPod) on the desk next to me full of stuff, a part of me resists the headlong sprint towards an all-digital, all-compressed, all-download future. There's too much tactile and emotional wealth at stake because of it, and that's something you really don't want to underestimate the value of.

Plus it's just cool. Watch the record spin, watch the tape spool from one side to the other, slow it with your finger, pick it up and spin it to the second side when the first one's done ... you just don't get these interesting things with CD, and with mp3 you dont even get to vainly try to find some way of looking like james dean when inserting and removing a disc.

[RandomMessenger]

OK look. The difference between playing a song on vinyl or CD means nothing to me. I have searched everywhere for answers, but found nothing but this silly playback debae. I WANT TO KNOW WHY, EVEN WHEN REMASTERED TO DIGITAL, ALL RECORDINGS FROM BEFORE THE DIGITAL AGE SOUND GOD!!!! Lets compare digital vs analogue RECORDING, and figure out why all music after the late 70's sounds like crap, with stupid midi-sounding drums, crappy reverb and EVERYTHING!!! PLEASE, FOR GOD's SAKE HELP ME!!!!! SOMEONE TELL ME WHY TRIBUTE BANDS ALL SOUND LIKE CRAP NOW< BUT BACK IN THE 70'S, A REMAKE SOUNDED GOOD!!! WHY DO ALL REMAKES OF "A WHITER SHADE OF PALE" SOUND LIKE ELEVATOR MUSIC???!??!!?!!????!!!!!?

[ckaiserjr]

"I love CDs but I've got a lot of vinyl that will never see a CD disc unless I transfer it myself. I mean where else am I going to find a copy of Juicy Lucy "Lie Back and It" on CD?"

Apparently on Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Lie-Back-Enjoy-Juicy-Lucy/dp/B00000719V/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=mus...1367648&sr=1-1

[Epicurus8a]

I've got lots of different formats including an Edison cylinder player. However I always prefer the convenience of the digital formats. XM Radio rules!