I always thought sleeves with jewel cases were badass. I may not like the band tool, but to be honest I have the Lateralus CD and man is this thing fucking beast.
Sleeve On:
[IMG]http://www.furiacontralamaquina.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/lateralus.jpg[/IMG]
Sleeve Off:
[IMG]http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/50249.gif[/IMG]
The Lateralus special edition vinyl looks fucking magnificent, but I've never even heard the album.
[url]http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=513594[/url]
[QUOTE=Akayz;24923426]snip[/QUOTE]
You do not know what you're talking about. As far as fidelity and accuracy, CD wins - hands down. CD and lossless files are the "original studio sound." Which format sounds better is all up to the individual.
Well said.
[QUOTE=Pal13;24926892] Which format sounds better is all up to the individual.[/QUOTE]
Its my opinion that my vinyl versions of albums are superior to that of their respective cd remasters.
Here is a real life example:
My Pink Floyd vinyls have a much more textured deep sound as compared to the CD remasters.
My Nirvana reissues on vinyl sound excellent compared to the cds
Stereo seperation is also vastly better on my Stevie Wonder records, or all in general
Then you are comparing mastering engineers, not formats. Just sayin'.
The Stadium Arcadium vinyl remasters were mastered by a better engineer who didn't over compress everything, sounds really nice. But I still prefer FLACs.
Pretty much :smug:
That's an apples and oranges comparison. You're comparing a vinyl recording with a CD recording that has been altered.
Regarding stereo separation, again, you don't know what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=Pal13;24927174]That's an apples and oranges comparison. You're comparing a vinyl recording with a CD recording that has been altered.
Regarding stereo separation, again, you don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
Are you for or against any arguement?
I'm arguing for lossless formats being pointless. CDs are still a useful format.
Most If not all CD versions of the albums that I have on vinyl, don't sound as good.
Whats the confusion?
[QUOTE=King_of_Town;24926519]The Lateralus special edition vinyl looks fucking magnificent, but I've never even heard the album.
[url]http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=513594[/url][/QUOTE]
Holy :gizz:
Lossless has it's benefits. It's portable, CD quality, and can be higher than CD quality.
I much prefer the plastic cases, because they protect the album artwork and booklet from getting damaged. Cases are easily replaceable.
One of my favorite bands broke up and I got all of their cd's autographed before their record company stopped printing their cds. One of them now has a crack in it because of my stupidity.
I'd take paper anyday. Does it cost more to make though?
Akayz is right..
Since vinyl is analogue you don't have to sacrifice anything. With CDs and other [u]digital[/u] media, you will [B]always[/B] lose [B]some[/B] of the actual data. There's no way around it. However, whether this is actually audible is another topic.
Though when you play vinyls you lose the data as the tiny grooves lose their definition, which translates to a loss in sound quality (a smaller range of frequency response). Digital formats such as CDs sound the same forever.
CDs are typically sampled at 44100Hz, which means 44100 samples of sound a second, which is pretty much impossible to detect as a non-continuous flow of sound. When you convert vinyls to digital formats like FLAC they will sound basically exactly the same as the vinyl, except they are stored in a non-degradable digital format.
Well, I prefer CDs, easier to store and if you're not retarded you won't crack the case
Then again I have no record player, nor do I own any records, no do I feel the need to own any records or a player
Sure, TheGuru. Also, pretty much all modern music today is recorded digitally anyway. But I'm speaking on a strictly theoretical level (I assumed we [i]all[/i] were).
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;24934883]Akayz is right..
Since vinyl is analogue you don't have to sacrifice anything. With CDs and other [u]digital[/u] media, you will [B]always[/B] lose [B]some[/B] of the actual data. There's no way around it. However, whether this is actually audible is another topic.[/QUOTE]
But because of the degradation of Vinyl, you get a bandpass filter effect as the needle wears away the peaks and lows, rolling off extreme frequencies.
Rad McCool. Nope, any analog format is very prone to "sacrificing" and degradation over time. You really need to elaborate on "With CD's and other digital media, you will always lose some of the actual data." From the recording process, to ripping the CD (an unscratched one), and transferring the files between storage devices - there is no data loss.
[editline]03:47AM[/editline]
TheGuru added other good points: 1. The vinyl medium degrades over time. 2. You can rip your vinyl to a lossless (high fidelity and accuracy) format, and have a static vinyl sound.
When you play vinyl, you're hearing a distorted and altered signal, and I'm not referring to superficial crackles and pops. It's not as perfect as CD. Some people prefer this sound. I think it's a damn good-sounding distortion, and it's very pleasant.
Each format has it's pros and cons. Each person has their preferences.
Don't form bold (no pun intended) statements without having facts to back them up.
Actually, CDs are 16Bit 44,100hz . If the tracking, mixing and mastering was done at 24Bit 48khz (as it commonly is) or even 24Bit 96khz there IS some loss when it is put onto CD. Can you hear it? Are your speakers and ears good enough to even hear it?, maybe so, maybe not.
Vinyl by design can not be 1:1 of the original, the RIAA EQ curve is applied before pressing, then the reverse is done in your player. The quality of even this part of the player will have an impact on your sound quality.
Yes sir. The downsampling part is the only "loss", but I don't see it as a negative one since it's hardly going to affect the listening experience - especially for regular consumers.
[QUOTE=Tezzanator92;24936571]Actually, CDs are 16Bit 44,100hz . If the tracking, mixing and mastering was done at 24Bit 48khz (as it commonly is) or even 24Bit 96khz there IS some loss when it is put onto CD. Can you hear it? [-snip][/QUOTE]
In any standard play-and-listen scenario, no. But the effects can be heard if you normalize the volume considerably on near-silent audio — Think of the very tail end of a track where it fades out to an end. This is the result of dithering in the 16-bit format.
[IMG]http://3nonetwo.com/zpers/images/16bit_dither.png[/IMG]
[URL="http://3nonetwo.com/zpers/images/16bit_dither.wav"][This example][/URL] was simulated by fading a song out in Goldwave, saving as 16-bit WAV, then shaping the volume back up to 'undo' the fade. Nevertheless, what you see/hear is entirely representational of the shortcomings available even in WAV. Converting audio from WAV to FLAC would not overcome this either, not unless your audio file was originally a 24/32-bit WAV file.
...However, this dithering issue only really matters if you were hoping to hear the singer sneak in a rude word before the end of the recording. :v:
[quote]Vinyl by design can not be 1:1 of the original, the RIAA EQ curve is applied before pressing, then the reverse is done in your player.[/quote]In addition to this, all low frequencies are centered in stereo space, due to limitations brought on by the needle. Low frequencies that wander in stereo space leave the needle very prone to skipping on the record. Skipping in this situation is unavoidable, save for maybe reading the vinyl with a laser stylus instead of a physical stylus.
tldr: There is no such thing as a perfect audio format. But who gives a fuck, this thread is about why old traditional Jewel Cases are shit and why Vinyl packaging [B]rocks ass[/B].
What I mean is that when people talk about sound quality, they usually refer to the sampling frequency. And so I said that vinyl is, theoretically, the best format. Since it is analogue, the sampling frequency would therefore be "infinitely high" since you don't digitalize it at all. Keep in mind, I'm on a theoretical level here. [b]I am not saying that vinyl sounds better than cds.[/b] But it [i]would[/i] if every condition was perfect.
Records = More expensive
Why pay more when I could get something on a CD, seriously?
I just don't see the goddamn point, unless you own an extensive record collection and a player already
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;24936915]What I mean is that when people talk about sound quality, they usually refer to the sampling frequency. And so I said that vinyl is, theoretically, the best format. Since it is analogue, the sampling frequency would therefore be "infinitely high" since you don't digitalize it at all. Keep in mind, I'm on a theoretical level here. [B]I am not saying that vinyl sounds better than cds.[/B] But it [I]would[/I] if every condition was perfect.[/QUOTE]
I can fully agree with this. Theoretical is the keyword.
There's a limited resolution and sampling rate on vinyl. You can't fit an infinite amount of "data" into those grooves.
[QUOTE=En-Guage V2;24936939]Records = More expensive
Why pay more when I could get something on a CD, seriously?[/QUOTE]
King of Town presented an amazing example of why someone would want to pay more for a vinyl record.[QUOTE=King_of_Town;24926519][URL]http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=513594[/URL][/QUOTE]
C'mon. Just by looks alone, you can't say it isn't impressive. I myself would not listen to this artist willingly, and yet I'd be pretty damn tempted to pick this vinyl up and admire it for a while.
If I wanted art, I would buy it
If I want music, I will buy music
One of the CD's I have has an incredible piece of artwork, all over the disc and inside the covering/book that came with it. It's incredible, one of my favourites
Bigger is not always better, and I'm sorry but Tool are not the average artists. Not every single record is a work of art I'm afraid
That alone would not be good enough to convince me to start buying records. Maybe one day I'll inherit some records, but until that day I'm not going to go out and buy them.
Neither is CD or record is better than the other, and I'm not going to be drawn into another quality argument with technophiles
Quality is in music, and that's what I spend my time trying to find, not amazing quality recordings
and for whoever said "You're holding music in your hand!"
That's stupid, you're still holding the blood, sweat and tears of the artists that strived to create the music you're holding in a CD.
Records are more old school, and I can respect that. I'm just not going to be told that a different medium of storing music is superior to another, when for a lot of different reasons (disregarding sentimental and historical value) is better
I don't really care about the quality as long as it's not like, 3kbps or something. As long as I think it sounds nice. Well, unless it's supposed to be lo-fi like Guided By Voices.
Didn't we already have this CD vs vinyl argument a few weeks back?
I also distinctly remember Akays being the primary combatant for the vinyls, too.
akayz gets off to vinyls
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
