help! i'm doing research for my degree

[FLZapped]

HI! i'm in my final year at uni in brighton, uk. I'm studying digital music and for my final project i did an essay on Analog vs. digital technology, and for my practical work i'm trying to figure out what i'm going to do in relation to my essay. Basically what i would like is for people to give me their views on analog equipment, more in terms of listening to, rather than purely technical stuff. Why do you prefer vinyl and the 'analog' sound? is digital technology too rigid, lifeless, too 'perfect'? Feel free to express all your opinions, it's all good and will help me out a great deal. Thanks for your time

This has been argued about since the introduction of the CD.....a google search will turn up more material than you could possibly digest.

Oddly, the facts seem not to matter. Fact is, the CD format has less frequency responce variation, less distortion, less noise, no wow and flutter, and greater dynamic range. WIth reaonable care the playback characteristics do not change over time as with records, which are prone to scratches and increased surface noise as the medium wears. Needless to say, listening to records now is something that is tedious to do. I even find that cassettes are preferable to records. The only thing records are good for are hiding the flaws in poorly done recordings.

-Bruce

[rb122]

Oddly, the facts seem not to matter. Fact is, the CD format has less frequency responce variation, less distortion, less noise, no wow and flutter, and greater dynamic range. WIth reaonable care the playback characteristics do not change over time as with records, which are prone to scratches and increased surface noise as the medium wears. Needless to say, listening to records now is something that is tedious to do. I even find that cassettes are preferable to records. The only thing records are good for are hiding the flaws in poorly done recordings.

-Bruce

Believe it or not, I have an internal struggle going on based on the facts you mentioned. I'm not sure where the irreconcilable differences lie between them and the final sound that I hear. The facts do matter but I hear more distortion and noise on CD than on LP and, of course, wow and flutter is a thing of the past as far as audibility unless you're using a turntable that is of very low quality. As I've said before, I find the distortions I hear on CD's more objectionable than the distortions I hear on LP. These CD distortions for some reason don't show up in measurements, yet they are quite apparent on listening.

I only own about 50 cassettes and, interestingly, they would also be my second medium of choice as they are preferable to most of my CD's, at least when it comes to the tonal balance of instruments. I've found that I can filter out the tape hiss as long as the music comes through. With CD, the music usually seems overlayed with noise rather than the noise being underneath the music.

[DMK]

The only thing records are good for are hiding the flaws in poorly done recordings.

-Bruce

On the flip side, CD's are good at hiding the good qualities in excellent recordings.

[rb122]

On the flip side, CD's are good at hiding the good qualities in excellent recordings.

They're good at changing timbre and tonality as well. CD's are the best at distortion. Must be the "Jitterbug Waltz".

[FLZapped]

They're good at changing timbre and tonality as well. CD's are the best at distortion. Must be the "Jitterbug Waltz".

Really? Please show me the distortion numbers from a CD as compared to a recod and lets see which one is actually lower......

While were at it, we can also check wow and flutter, frequency responce variation, dynamic range, signal to noise ratio, and channel seperation - all various forms of distortion. I seriously doubt you'll find any vinyl system that can match the cheapest CD player.

So what do you base this claim off of? Were you there for the recording session, or are you just propagating another urban legend?

-Bruce

[rb122]

Really? Please show me the distortion numbers from a CD as compared to a recod and lets see which one is actually lower......

While were at it, we can also check wow and flutter, frequency responce variation, dynamic range, signal to noise ratio, and channel seperation - all various forms of distortion. I seriously doubt you'll find any vinyl system that can match the cheapest CD player.

So what do you base this claim off of? Were you there for the recording session, or are you just propagating another urban legend?

-Bruce

Bruce,

See my last post - looks like we overlapped.

YOU go ahead and measure all you like. I prefer to listen. The "distortion numbers" from CD's all become painfully apparent upon listening.

[E-Stat]

The "distortion numbers" from CD's all become painfully apparent upon listening.

Hey guy, get with the plan ! Don't you know that the numbers prove RBCD is perfect and the only reason the high resolution formats are being developed is because the RB patents are running out?

rw

[rb122]

Hey guy, get with the plan ! Don't you know that the numbers prove RBCD is perfect and the only reason the high resolution formats are being developed is because the RB patents are running out?

rw

I just didn't know perfection had so many faults and limitations!

[FLZapped]

On the flip side, CD's are good at hiding the good qualities in excellent recordings.

Are you basing this off of standard records? Or have you all the mixdown masters at your disposal?

If you are basing this off of a record, then you are hearing higher noise, less channel seperation, more distortion, loaer dynamic range, and more variation in frequency responce from the record. Hardly seems the kind of thing you'd want to make that proclimation from.

-Bruce

[rb122]

Are you basing this off of standard records? Or have you all the mixdown masters at your disposal?

If you are basing this off of a record, then you are hearing higher noise, less channel seperation, more distortion, loaer dynamic range, and more variation in frequency responce from the record. Hardly seems the kind of thing you'd want to make that proclimation from.

-Bruce

I would imagine that dmk will respond at some point but since I agree with him, I will answer as well. Certainly I'm basing this off a record some of the time and other times I'm basing it off either hearing the master tape (very rarely) or being at the live event during recording (more often but still rare) or simply comparing the sound of the instruments on CD to the sound of them live (VERY often).

Measurements may show us one side but listening shows that most CD's I've heard have much higher distortion, more noise, less frequency range, less dynamic range, jitter and other gross sonic anomalies. I can appreciate what's been measured but those specs must apply to the sound before I can give them as much credence as you seem to be able to do.

This is going to sound like boastfulness but what the heck. I play the guitar. I can tell within a few notes what kind of guitar is being played (electric models/brands) and I know the sound of most electric guitars intimately. When I know that Herb Ellis is playing a Gibson ES-175 and the sound from the CD is a Fender Stratocaster, that's a "gross sonic anomaly" in my book. That's just one example of many. BTW, I use a tubed amplifier for my stereo system mainly because of my experiences with tube and SS guitar amps. A tubed guitar amp allows the sound of the guitar to come through while the SS guitar amp often imposes its own sound, particularly when using an overdrive channel or driving the amp to clipping if there is no overdrive channel. I therefore reasoned, and careful listening has backed me up, that a tubed stereo system amp sounds more like music and less like amplification. The bottom line is that I use my ears to determine what sounds most like real music and that is vinyl and tubes. When I post that CD's sound distorted, I do so because that's what I hear.

"Give me distortion that simulates reality rather than reality that simulates distortion" i.e give me a undistorted final product and I'll accept the means - at least when it comes to audio!

[DMK]

Are you basing this off of standard records? Or have you all the mixdown masters at your disposal?

If you are basing this off of a record, then you are hearing higher noise, less channel seperation, more distortion, loaer dynamic range, and more variation in frequency responce from the record. Hardly seems the kind of thing you'd want to make that proclimation from.

-Bruce

But with CD's, I'm hearing more grain, more etch, more glare, jitter, tonal imbalances, lack of low level resolution and more distortion. CD's generally make it a pretty simple task to make the statement I did. For all the measurable problems vinyl has, it's amazing that it's still the medium to beat for quality sonics. When and if I ever find anything that sounds better than the 45 RPM LP's I own, I'll be shocked but happy. But yes, standard records generally beat CD's in the sonics department as well. And at around $1-2 a pop at the used record stores, they're economical as well compared to $14-15 CD's (or even $8 used copies).