[QUOTE=Warship;39897372]Generally, digital is the most efficient and convenient way to go when storing any sort of information. Some people argue that vinyl records sound better than audio CDs, but that might be true because of the mixing that has to be done to the music in order to sound good on a record, idunno.[/QUOTE]
I don't get these people, it's like saying 240p is better than 1080p
[QUOTE=Goz3rr;39897376]I don't get these people, it's like saying 240p is better than 1080p[/QUOTE]
lmao, this guy
[QUOTE=Goz3rr;39897376]I don't get these people, it's like saying 240p is better than 1080p[/QUOTE]
...no
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;39897379]Vinyl sounds warmer, still can't beat lossless audio files though.[/QUOTE]
I suppose vinyl is more "organic" in the way it sounds, if that makes any sense. Vinyls themselves also can't technically really contain bass, the pre-amp sorts that out though.
Ok, lets get this over with. Vinyl isn't perfect, it has a shitload of inherent problems (pops/cracks, prone to warping and such, large, no easy way to get full separation of stereo channels, prone to lower quality materials, prone to lower quality duplications, etc, etc) but it doesn't suffer from a lot of the problems that digital does, like quantization, which is what creates what can only be compared to aliasing. It's a problem that is impossible to avoid problem with a digital process, a lot of the time it's lessened by dithering the sound (Yes, just like an image), it can be good but it can also destroy sound, it all depends on the mastering.
There's also jittering, which can be caused by low quality hardware, or sometimes it's just so small of an issue that it's unavoidable in the hardware. Be it the recording hardware, or playback.
Digital also is inherently limiting, both with quantization and with sample rates. I have no actual stats on this but I would say that CD Audio is the most common type of digital audio (Before people bastardize it with 96 kbps MP3) which plays at 44.1kHz (Which, yes, is well above any human's hearing range) with a 16 bit quantization. Vinyl, however goes up to 96-100kHz with no quantization. (However, groove wearing can occur which has been reported a few times to produce a similar effect to quantization). That being said, just because it can, doesn't mean it will. Nothing is guaranteed.
Where seemingly most people believe the supposed improved quality of vinyl is dynamic range, people say it has a higher dynamic range... which isn't exactly true. Vinyl dynamic range peaks at 120 dB while properly mastered CD's can get 150 dB. When you get into DVD-A and BD-A, it can get wayyyy higher (Despite the two being rare as balls).
This also stems from, as previously mentioned by warship, the warmth of a vinyl. A lot of easily impressionable "audiophiles" seem to confuse the nice warmth of vinyl and analogue audio equipment with dynamic range. I have no idea why people think it has a larger dynamic range, it's bullshit. I'd guess it comes from people comparing well made vinyls to badly mastered CD's.
All of that being said, the real advantage of vinyl is it's analogue nature. It has a not so noticeable, but higher resolution of sound, with a really nice warmth with the lack of aliasing, and due to the lack of digital constraints, is more likely to produce a more accurate sound.
CD's however, most people don't notice the difference and above all, don't care at all about the difference, because CD's are so fucking convenient. You have a high level of error correction, they're tiny, they're light, they still provide high quality sound, they can be perfectly reproduced with no effect on the content itself, and so on.
Now, with all that being said, most of the differences between CD's, Vinyl, mastering, etc, is entirely subjective. People like different things and people can hear different qualities in each. One person's ear is different from another, one persons perception is different from another. And even more so, it's all dependent on more audio gear than the audio medium itself, you have to think of circuits, tubes, headphones/speakers, etc, etc.
And now with all that said, one thing HAS to be said and that is:
[b]It is entirely impossible to ever reproduce a sound with 100% accuracy.[/b]
[b]tl;dr holy shit that took forever to write, but both vinyl and digital have their own advantages, and most of the difference is entirely subjective and up to the listener.[/b]
[editline]13th March 2013[/editline]
Oh and also, a lot of that is simplified, so don't beat me up on some of it because I know it's not entirely accurate, it's only like that to give a painless explanation but feel free to correct me when I am wrong. Seriously, I made this because I don't want people to get the wrong idea.
[editline]13th March 2013[/editline]
...I can't believe I just wrote all that.
[QUOTE=wingless;39897503]When you get into DVD-A and BD-A, it can get wayyyy higher (Despite the two being rare as balls).[/QUOTE]
I wish BD-A would be more of a thing.
Like, the Blu-Ray version of Dark Side of the Moon has three different mixes of the album (The 2003 surround mix, the quadrophonic mix and the original stereo mix) all in 24/96 LCPM [I]and[/I] video extras.
However, you can't argue that vinyl is the coolest audio format ever. I want this: [url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Discovery-VINYL-Daft-Punk/dp/B00005AYFN/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1363167207&sr=8-4[/url]
[QUOTE=Warship;39897627]However, you can't argue that vinyl is the coolest audio format ever. I want this: [url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Discovery-VINYL-Daft-Punk/dp/B00005AYFN/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1363167207&sr=8-4[/url][/QUOTE]
Reel to reel is cooler.
[img]http://www.beatlesource.com/bs/scans/tother/somethingnew.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Warship;39897627]However, you can't argue that vinyl is the coolest audio format ever. I want this: [url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Discovery-VINYL-Daft-Punk/dp/B00005AYFN/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1363167207&sr=8-4[/url][/QUOTE]
Scrub.
[url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alive-1997-VINYL-Daft-Punk/dp/B00005NVT0/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1363167381&sr=1-1[/url]
Vinyl is superior to CD in every way to do with decoration. Hang those fuckers on a wall.
[QUOTE=wingless;39897655]Scrub.
[url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alive-1997-VINYL-Daft-Punk/dp/B00005NVT0/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1363167381&sr=1-1[/url]
Vinyl is superior to CD in every way to do with decoration. Hang those fuckers on a wall.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.dreamicons.com/images/Art%20Vinyl%20Play%20and%20Display%20Album%20flip%20Frame%20White%201%20piece%204.jpg[/img]
I want my wall to look like this.
[sup]Minus the tacky sign[/sup]
It doesn't help that most modern music is mixed like crap. There's extensive use of per-track compression in addition to compression at the final mastering stage in a lot of modern music and its painful to listen to if you deal with this stuff on a daily basis.
We have a medium which offers huge amounts of dynamic range and we, generally, aren't utilizing it. I fear some of the comparisons stem from this.
Thankfully we still do get some releases that favor dynamic range and quality over perceived loudness.
I've had the opportunity to sit in on a mix of a proper label release and it surprised me how much processing was used... and this was a bluegrass-country record. It went from lovely acoustic sounds recorded with excellent Neumann microphones to a pile of crap, the end result was horrifying so I'll refrain from naming and shaming.
Laserdiscs make the best wall decoration.
[QUOTE=rhx123;39897688]Laserdiscs make the best wall decoration.[/QUOTE]
Japanese Copy of Back to the Future in LD will hang on my wall, one day.
[QUOTE=wingless;39897655]Scrub.
[url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alive-1997-VINYL-Daft-Punk/dp/B00005NVT0/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1363167381&sr=1-1[/url]
Vinyl is superior to CD in every way to do with decoration. Hang those fuckers on a wall.[/QUOTE]
Woops, worded that wrongly. I meant to say vinyl is the coolest looking format there is, and you can't argue against it.
Now I regret that I didn't use [img]http://i.imgur.com/3K6xdLR.gif[/img] in that post.
[QUOTE=wingless;39897740]Now I regret that I didn't use [img]http://i.imgur.com/3K6xdLR.gif[/img] in that post.[/QUOTE]
I think I will invent the edit button [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/3K6xdLR.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=rhx123;39897749]I think I will invent the edit button [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/3K6xdLR.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/1bMZ9d3.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=wingless;39896850]I'll bite.
[img]http://puu.sh/2gSfw[/img][/QUOTE]
it's obviously me in "the greatest person alive", isn't it?
[QUOTE=Ezhik;39897758]it's obviously me in "the greatest person alive", isn't it?[/QUOTE]
No, you're a hedgehog not a person.
[QUOTE=Ezhik;39897758]it's obviously me in "the greatest person alive", isn't it?[/QUOTE]
Back when Skyrim first came out for pre-order, Horsedrowner bought me it basically immediately, so he got that tag and I never changed it because I always know where he is in my friends list.
[QUOTE=rhx123;39897765]No, you're a hedgehog not a person.[/QUOTE]
whoa
hedgehogs are people too
check your human privilege
[QUOTE=Ezhik;39897770]whoa
hedgehogs are people too
check your human privilege[/QUOTE]
Hedgehogs are awesome and they're so adorable around here.
[QUOTE=wingless;39897503]...
Digital also is inherently limiting, both with quantization and with sample rates. I have no actual stats on this but I would say that CD Audio is the most common type of digital audio (Before people bastardize it with 96 kbps MP3) which plays at 44.1kHz (Which, yes, is well above any human's hearing range) with a [B]16 bit quantization[/B]. Vinyl, however goes up to 96-100kHz with no quantization. (However, groove wearing can occur which has been reported a few times to produce a similar effect to quantization). That being said, just because it can, doesn't mean it will. Nothing is guaranteed.
...[/QUOTE]
Is anybody really going to be affected by 16bit quantisation? (assuming it's per channel, etc.)
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;39897846]Is anybody really going to be affected by 16bit quantisation? (assuming it's per channel, etc.)[/QUOTE]
It is noticeable. 24 bit is pretty good but still noticeable. However, you probably won't if you're just casually listening for the sake of listening, and not actively trying to critique the quality or anything.
As Tezz said, most of the quality now-a-days really comes down to mastering, including quantization techniques. Dithering can work both in favour and against, for example. It all depends on how it's used.
[QUOTE=wingless;39897319]I'd say you're living in the future when you realize that this:
[t]http://i.imgur.com/k60UgW6.jpg[/t]
holds 30 - 40 photos, yet this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/uZhfpeh.jpg[/img]
holds literally tens of thousands, that can easily be manipulated, corrected, stored and backed up while being something like a 50th of the size.
That's how I know we're living in the future.[/QUOTE]
I've actually been looking into comparing the size of game libraries for consoles with the size the ROM data stored in 64 GB MicroSD cards would take up
From rough ballparks (wikipedia and torrents) every release for the PS3 can be stored in something like 400 of those cards (if all games average at 30-40 GB discs, which they probably don't, couldn't find per-game size info), with the PS2's library being able to be stored in 40 (You can probably fit 40 cards in your pocket, while [URL="http://i.imgur.com/mzvoX.jpg"]this[/URL] is the space that library takes up with the original cases and everything), and the PS1's in less than 10.
None of those amounts is even too big to carry around. In fact, you could carry 1.2 petabytes of data in a gallon jug filled with [I]25000[/I] 64 GB cards. (stolen from xkcd, might be BS) It'd cost a million dollars, but it wouldn't be really that hard to carry around or anything.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;39898235]I've actually been looking into comparing the size of game libraries for consoles with the size the ROM data stored in 64 GB MicroSD cards would take up
From rough ballparks (wikipedia and torrents) every release for the PS3 can be stored in something like 400 of those cards [b](if all games average at 30-40 GB discs, which they probably don't, couldn't find per-game size info)[/b], with the PS2's library being able to be stored in 40, and the PS1's in less than 10.
None of those amounts is even too big to carry around. In fact, you could carry 1.2 petabytes of data in a gallon jug filled with [I]25000[/I] 64 GB cards. It'd cost a million dollars, but it wouldn't be really that hard to carry around or anything.[/QUOTE]
Dangerous assumption there. I can tell you that Dead or Alive 5 and Little Big Planet 2 are around 5-6GB and I'm quite certain the original LBP is smaller. A bunch of games on the PS3 barely fill up the size of a blu-ray disk.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;39898235]I've actually been looking into comparing the size of game libraries for consoles with the size the ROM data stored in 64 GB MicroSD cards would take up
From rough ballparks (wikipedia and torrents) every release for the PS3 can be stored in something like 400 of those cards (if all games average at 30-40 GB discs, which they probably don't, couldn't find per-game size info), with the PS2's library being able to be stored in 40, and the PS1's in less than 10.
None of those amounts is even too big to carry around. In fact, you could carry 1.2 petabytes of data in a gallon jug filled with [I]25000[/I] 64 GB cards. It'd cost a million dollars, but it wouldn't be really that hard to carry around or anything.[/QUOTE]
We were estimating this shit too
We were following the classic quote, but in our case it was: "Never underestimate the bandwidth of checked luggage full of enterprise hard drives flying in a 747"
I think it was 40x faster than Australia's average internet speed :v:
[QUOTE=kaze4159;39898259]We were estimating this shit too
We were following the classic quote, but in our case it was: "Never underestimate the bandwidth of checked luggage full of enterprise hard drives flying in a 747"
I think it was 40x faster than Australia's average internet speed :v:[/QUOTE]
Pitty it would be a few thousand times more expensive :v:
People seem to forget that with that classic one.
What-if XKCD actually did a great article about [URL="http://what-if.xkcd.com/31/"]Fedex's bandwidth[/URL]. He didn't mention the shipping costs, sadly.
[QUOTE=wingless;39898258]Dangerous assumption there. I can tell you that Dead or Alive 5 and Little Big Planet 2 are around 5-6GB and I'm quite certain the original LBP is smaller. A bunch of games on the PS3 barely fill up the size of a blu-ray disk.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I thought so. If I go by Xbox 360 sizes, and averaging at 6GB (between single and dual layer capacities, ugh why hasn't anyone uploaded these so I can get proper size data) the library comes out at a kind of less impressive 88 cards.
I'm going to guess that the average PS3 game is at around 7-8 GB as well.
The really large ones are few, and there's also a lot of games that take very small amounts of space.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
