them being for courses and such.
me i prefer to be able to listen to music.couldnt give a monkees what format so long as it plays
Some Questions About Vinyl
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111294 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
its all to do with horses.
them being for courses and such.
me i prefer to be able to listen to music.couldnt give a monkees what format so long as it plays
them being for courses and such.
me i prefer to be able to listen to music.couldnt give a monkees what format so long as it plays
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
Encarta speaks bollocks then.speccyteccy wrote:From Encarta:
"Monaural and stereophonic records have different types of grooves. In mono records, both the frequency and amplitude of the signal are stored as side movements in the groove. Only one channel is present. In stereo records, two separate channels are present in one groove. The side movements in the groove store the information for one channel and the vertical movements in the groove store information for the other."
-
- KVRAF
- 6937 posts since 4 Jun, 2004 from Utrecht, Holland
This way a stereo record would not be playable on a mono set or vice versa an ancient mono record would play on a stereo record player on only one channel. Everybody with a certain age would remember all records of a certain era (the sixties/seventies) were labeled "stereo (also playable in mono)" hence the Encarta info is bollux on this point.In stereo records, two separate channels are present in one groove. The side movements in the groove store the information for one channel and the vertical movements in the groove store information for the other.
Both channels are picked up from a set of coils that have an angle of 45 degrees with the record, but 90 degrees with each other. If the needle only moves up/down, it is equally picked up by both coils. If the needle moves in a pane of 45 degrees it is only picked up by one of the coils.
[/quote]
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35449 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
I record all my albums onto dictaphone for low-fi authenticity.
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
[/quote]C00kie wrote:This way a stereo record would not be playable on a mono set or vice versa an ancient mono record would play on a stereo record player on only one channel. Everybody with a certain age would remember all records of a certain era (the sixties/seventies) were labeled "stereo (also playable in mono)" hence the Encarta info is bollux on this point.In stereo records, two separate channels are present in one groove. The side movements in the groove store the information for one channel and the vertical movements in the groove store information for the other.
Both channels are picked up from a set of coils that have an angle of 45 degrees with the record, but 90 degrees with each other. If the needle only moves up/down, it is equally picked up by both coils. If the needle moves in a pane of 45 degrees it is only picked up by one of the coils.
COOkie speaks the truth.
-
- KVRAF
- 2608 posts since 26 Aug, 2002 from here
this is a bit off the cuff so i'm quite willing to concede that i;m speaking bullocks (for a change)
but i think the reason vinyl sounds better is about how it introduces distortion. As the needle waggles about inertia means that it sometimes cannot respond as quickly as it should - but this alteration of movement is affected by the amplitude and ? frequency of the previous one - so the inertial distortion is a sort of harmonic smearing
tube amps are always said to be warm and the things distort horribly compared to solid state equipment (unless you spend insane sums of money) - but tube distortion is harmonic (mainly 1st and 3 rd order) so it s pleasing to the ear
cd has just got cold digital distortion - but a lot less of it
you pays your moeny you take your choice - personally i can't abide the clicks and pops vinyl makes - gonna get me a dvd-a player soon
but i think the reason vinyl sounds better is about how it introduces distortion. As the needle waggles about inertia means that it sometimes cannot respond as quickly as it should - but this alteration of movement is affected by the amplitude and ? frequency of the previous one - so the inertial distortion is a sort of harmonic smearing
tube amps are always said to be warm and the things distort horribly compared to solid state equipment (unless you spend insane sums of money) - but tube distortion is harmonic (mainly 1st and 3 rd order) so it s pleasing to the ear
cd has just got cold digital distortion - but a lot less of it
you pays your moeny you take your choice - personally i can't abide the clicks and pops vinyl makes - gonna get me a dvd-a player soon
-
- Skunk Mod
- 21249 posts since 10 Jun, 2004 from Pony Pasture
Oh, great -- KvR stops talking, and when I get back everyone else has already made my Olde-Tyme Authoritye point about Encarta. No points for me. *grumble*
Given the antiquated (pre-standard stereo) information in that entry, I wonder whether Encarta describes a computer as a device costing millions, requiring an air conditioned room, and requiring a crew of operators. It's from about the same epoch.
Meffy
Given the antiquated (pre-standard stereo) information in that entry, I wonder whether Encarta describes a computer as a device costing millions, requiring an air conditioned room, and requiring a crew of operators. It's from about the same epoch.
Meffy
-
- KVRist
- 59 posts since 19 May, 2003
Vinyl is capable of reproducing a much wider spectrum of frequencies than a cd. Hence a better quality of sound. A cd has 'sampled' only a fraction of the existing frequencies originally played by the musicians whereas vinyl captures just about all frequencies.
Thats my twopenny worth anyway.
Thats my twopenny worth anyway.
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
I was late in adopting digital. Nothing could convince me that the evil silver disc sounded better than a slate on my Linn. I only succumbed when I couldn't get new vinyl.
There are still some albums which, to me, are unlistenable on cd (Van Morrisons Moondance, the Beatles Red and Blue albums to name a couple).
One thing that never gets mentioned is that everything that goes to vinyl also goes through a mastering engineer. It has to due to the limitations of the medium. This isn't always the case with a CD. A good mastering engineer can work miracles with a mix. I suspect this may have more than a little to do with peoples preference.
There are still some albums which, to me, are unlistenable on cd (Van Morrisons Moondance, the Beatles Red and Blue albums to name a couple).
One thing that never gets mentioned is that everything that goes to vinyl also goes through a mastering engineer. It has to due to the limitations of the medium. This isn't always the case with a CD. A good mastering engineer can work miracles with a mix. I suspect this may have more than a little to do with peoples preference.
-
- Banned
- 4026 posts since 27 Jan, 2004
Meffy wrote:
Given the antiquated (pre-standard stereo) information in that entry, I wonder whether Encarta describes a computer as a device costing millions, requiring an air conditioned room, and requiring a crew of operators. It's from about the same epoch.
Meffy
hmm...sounds just like any PC you´d get in a store today no?
altho´ I´m not sure about the "millions bit"
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 10597 posts since 13 Jun, 2004 from Alberto Balsam
Both vinyl an CD's have a frequency band much wider than what you can hear - It doen't matter.HoTRocK wrote:Vinyl is capable of reproducing a much wider spectrum of frequencies than a cd. Hence a better quality of sound. A cd has 'sampled' only a fraction of the existing frequencies originally played by the musicians whereas vinyl captures just about all frequencies.
Thats my twopenny worth anyway.
Thanks for the stereo explaination, COOkie.
As for which sounds better, it's completely oppinion. I actually only think vinyl sounds better on vocal or instrumental music, when i would prefer a digital format on completely electronic music.
-
- KVRAF
- 2608 posts since 26 Aug, 2002 from here
and im the opposite - electronic needs that blurring - while real instruments suit the crystal clear perfection of cdChase wrote:[
As for which sounds better, it's completely oppinion. I actually only think vinyl sounds better on vocal or instrumental music, when i would prefer a digital format on completely electronic music.
-
- KVRer
- 26 posts since 30 Jul, 2004
The warmth, impact, and other elusive sonic qualities of vinyl vs. cd have to a lot do with clock (in addition to bit depth and sample rate).
An SL1210 deck has a 'clock' that fluctuates (even with the pitch adj at dead center), yet this fluctuation sounds beautiful like the oscillator on an analog synth.
The typical CD player has a cheap clock that sounds horrible in its jittery fluctutations.
Rip a CD to HD (use an application that does a CRC verify), play it through a high end sound card with word clock inputs, and use something like a Big Ben box to generate the clock. Now you've got killer D/A and a rock solid clock, do a listening comparison with any affordable CD player on the market.
The audiophile purist will play each piece of vinyl only once a day. The vinyl heats up and needs to 'cool' down. It remembers its original unstretched shape better the next day. A large increase in wear down begins when the vinyl is not 'cool'.
Even a brand new piece of vinyl can be cleaned (and not with a stupid kit from the local r. shack). Otherwise microscopic pieces from the record mold (as in press) are left on top of the vinyl. First records off the press sound the best, and each piece of vinyl is slightly different (if only on a microscopic level). Anything left on the vinyl surface increases wear and changes the sound. If the vinyl is only played clean and then stored in something like the diskwasher V.R.P. for a sleeve, then the vinyl can last a long time.
CD's do wear out. Touch the surface with your finger, stick it in the player and you can get laser rot on the surface. The dye used on some major music labels' CD releases are engineered to wear out within a few years even without the laser rot.
When error correction is engaged on a CD player, it often sounds subtly worse even if there is not a distinct skip. In theory this should not happen, but imagine if the the CPU driving the clock must also handle error correction. In contrast the wear on a piece of vinyl can add to its character in a pleasant way.
The pressure on the stylus needs to be set right, or wear is increased (yet levels and resistance to skip are improved). Of course the needle selected and its age make a huge difference in the sound. The needle and its pressure control the surface elements' dispersion pattern all over the vinyl, affecting the sound of repeated plays.
In essence with vinyl there is a subtle change in sound with every play (clock, heat, wear, surface element, and other factors) even with identical system settings. With a CD at best you get an identical play every time, and when the clock jitters it sounds lousy.
With any deck in the 1200 family play back a piece of vinyl at some setting other than original pitch. Look for a digital system that interpolates this smooth in real time and with this level of fine control.
Vinyl will always have a place. Organizing the pieces in the crates, and easily transporting a large collection is the challenge.
An SL1210 deck has a 'clock' that fluctuates (even with the pitch adj at dead center), yet this fluctuation sounds beautiful like the oscillator on an analog synth.
The typical CD player has a cheap clock that sounds horrible in its jittery fluctutations.
Rip a CD to HD (use an application that does a CRC verify), play it through a high end sound card with word clock inputs, and use something like a Big Ben box to generate the clock. Now you've got killer D/A and a rock solid clock, do a listening comparison with any affordable CD player on the market.
The audiophile purist will play each piece of vinyl only once a day. The vinyl heats up and needs to 'cool' down. It remembers its original unstretched shape better the next day. A large increase in wear down begins when the vinyl is not 'cool'.
Even a brand new piece of vinyl can be cleaned (and not with a stupid kit from the local r. shack). Otherwise microscopic pieces from the record mold (as in press) are left on top of the vinyl. First records off the press sound the best, and each piece of vinyl is slightly different (if only on a microscopic level). Anything left on the vinyl surface increases wear and changes the sound. If the vinyl is only played clean and then stored in something like the diskwasher V.R.P. for a sleeve, then the vinyl can last a long time.
CD's do wear out. Touch the surface with your finger, stick it in the player and you can get laser rot on the surface. The dye used on some major music labels' CD releases are engineered to wear out within a few years even without the laser rot.
When error correction is engaged on a CD player, it often sounds subtly worse even if there is not a distinct skip. In theory this should not happen, but imagine if the the CPU driving the clock must also handle error correction. In contrast the wear on a piece of vinyl can add to its character in a pleasant way.
The pressure on the stylus needs to be set right, or wear is increased (yet levels and resistance to skip are improved). Of course the needle selected and its age make a huge difference in the sound. The needle and its pressure control the surface elements' dispersion pattern all over the vinyl, affecting the sound of repeated plays.
In essence with vinyl there is a subtle change in sound with every play (clock, heat, wear, surface element, and other factors) even with identical system settings. With a CD at best you get an identical play every time, and when the clock jitters it sounds lousy.
With any deck in the 1200 family play back a piece of vinyl at some setting other than original pitch. Look for a digital system that interpolates this smooth in real time and with this level of fine control.
Vinyl will always have a place. Organizing the pieces in the crates, and easily transporting a large collection is the challenge.
-
- KVRAF
- 2548 posts since 7 Jul, 2003 from Huntington, WV
That's not true. A person with good high-frequency hearing can definitely hear frequencies higher than those a CD is able to capture. The old myth about humans not hearing above 20 kHz is a gross oversimplification of the truth. When it comes to hearing response, there is a fair amount of variation from individual to individual, and also some changes are brought on by illness (sometimes enhancing high frequencies, sometimes attenuating them.) Even if you pick a particular person's hearing response as the "standard", the high-end doesn't simply hit a brick wall at some "magical" "textbook number" such as 20 kHz. The high end of human hearing frequency response generally falls off much more gradually, therefore it is quite possible to hear frequencies beyond the "cutoff point", albeit at reduced sensitivities.Chase wrote:Both vinyl an CD's have a frequency band much wider than what you can hear - It doen't matter.
take care,
McLilith