Or does Led Zeppelin just flat out sound better on vinyl? My first experience with the band came in my early teens. I went and spent the summer with my aunt and uncle. When I came across a box of old records. At that time I hadnt heard of any of these bands, so my uncle a huge music lover and alot like Hyde from ..."That 70's Show". Told me to sit down, showed me how to work the record player and handed me a set of head phones. The first album he put on was Zeppelin 3 and I just loved it. He had 1,2,3 but 3 was by far my favorite. When I returned home from that trip I went straight out and bought 1-4 on cd. While I love them all 3 never had that same vibe. The next summer I went back went straight over and popped 3 in to see if there was something diffrent. Tracks was listed the same but it just sounded so much better.......Fast forward today, a buddy of mine stopped by tonight to jam. He brought with him a copy of Zep's Coda with him. I owned it on cd but never got much of a vibe from it. We will and deal all the time, and by the time he left I had a Coda, Van Halen II, and a Alice Cooper album I got to go pick out tomarrow all on vinyl. After he left I jammed a lil more, watch'd sons of anarchy and then sat down here. Popped Coda in and what....there's that classic Zep vibe I found on 3. Maybe its just me, but this band just sounds so much better on vinyl, maybe its the nolstagia...maybe its because thats how the bands music was orginaly released. Not sure when cassettes became mainstay. Im convinced now though I need to find some more classic rock ala Aerosmith, Stones, and others to see if they to sound better.
Is it just me.....
- Thread starter Jx2
- Start date
R_of_G
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 5,022
- Reaction score
- 0
It's my understanding that the very nature of digital recording is lossy. Analog recording captures a sound wave in its entirety and a vinly record mirrors precisely the original sound. Digital recording uses a specific sampling rate (44,100 times/second for a CD) and approximates the rest. As a result, there are elements of music that can be distorted in digital recording because they change faster than the rate of recording.
Eric
Well-known member
I'm no expert on this, but I'm guessing that the sampling rates can achieve enough accuracy so that a human ear probably could not detect it. If I had to guess why vinyl sounds better, it's probably due to how the limitations of recording actually produce a better (if less accurate) sound for listening. You know, kind of like how tubes make for a good tone, even if they do a bad job of reproducing the exact sound.
The compression thing is a common recording technique these days. I suppose my point is that the compression and overly hi-fi recording ability probably trumps the lack-of-tracking-due-to-digitizing thing.
I wish one of the recording experts would chime in to let us know if we're just blowing smoke.
BTW, I realize this isn't what you meant, but there are lossy and lossless codecs out there when it comes to digital music. MP3, OGG, AAC, M4A, WMA, and all of those are lossy. FLAC and a few others are lossless compression, meaning they maintain all data.
The compression thing is a common recording technique these days. I suppose my point is that the compression and overly hi-fi recording ability probably trumps the lack-of-tracking-due-to-digitizing thing.
I wish one of the recording experts would chime in to let us know if we're just blowing smoke.
BTW, I realize this isn't what you meant, but there are lossy and lossless codecs out there when it comes to digital music. MP3, OGG, AAC, M4A, WMA, and all of those are lossy. FLAC and a few others are lossless compression, meaning they maintain all data.
R_of_G
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 5,022
- Reaction score
- 0
Eric said:
True, though I suppose it's a matter of how that human ear is listening to it (ie. quality of playback system, quality of headphones, etc.) In other words, it's something non-audiophiles (read as "most music consumers") wouldn't really be concerned with, but then again, it seems like most people are perfectly content listening to lossy mp3s through low quality earbud headphones.
Personally I cant stand mp3's. Guess Im kinda old skewl but I really enjoy the album art and information contained in "most" packages. Granted some are nothing more than a slip of paper. While downloads are taking over the music. I think someday probably sooner than I'll like. Cd's will be gone, and so will be the ultra cool, yet fastly disappearing music stores. Both of which have already started. I personaly think it wont be long and if you want a true album it'll only be available on vinyl because I think that will be the focus point to collectors. Plus with vinyl regaining popularity its more money in the pockets of the labels.
90% of my music collection comes from a local private owned buisness. Its about a 30 minute drive but Ive been buying from the guy since the mid 90's.
His prices are on average a buck or two more than say amazon or best buy. However, unlike them this owner can help you find anything. And when you ask about a specific album he knows exactly where its located. Not one of these guys that walk over the "B's" and start searching just like you did. Just to look at you later and so no we dont sorry. Plus this guy will go out of his way to locate anything your looking for. And he supports local music he use to let local bands put in thier stuff and wouldnt take a penny of it. Ive heard now he takes 50 cents to a dollar, but he's also battling very hard to keep the doors open.
90% of my music collection comes from a local private owned buisness. Its about a 30 minute drive but Ive been buying from the guy since the mid 90's.
His prices are on average a buck or two more than say amazon or best buy. However, unlike them this owner can help you find anything. And when you ask about a specific album he knows exactly where its located. Not one of these guys that walk over the "B's" and start searching just like you did. Just to look at you later and so no we dont sorry. Plus this guy will go out of his way to locate anything your looking for. And he supports local music he use to let local bands put in thier stuff and wouldnt take a penny of it. Ive heard now he takes 50 cents to a dollar, but he's also battling very hard to keep the doors open.
Eric
Well-known member
Yep, and I'm probably one of those people, to be honest.R_of_G said:
The only reason I said the thing about sampling rates is that I have to assume that if it wasn't doing its job, there would have been significant advancements by now. Studioheads seem to be OK with the 44100 sampling rate now, and I don't know enough to say otherwise.
Heywood Jablomie
Well-known member
I tend to lean in this direction:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/
Spec weenies always hear the differences. Of course, what one hears is what is real to them. But a lot of this stuff seems to have an "emporer's new clothes" aspect.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/
Spec weenies always hear the differences. Of course, what one hears is what is real to them. But a lot of this stuff seems to have an "emporer's new clothes" aspect.
Heywood Jablomie
Well-known member
I recall such a comparison with a panel of professional recording engineers. IIRC, on average, they were correct 50% of the time. some said they couldn't tell the difference. All of them were very surprised, as they assumed it would be a piece of cake. I wish I had a citation, but I don't.kiteman said:
Tig
Valar Morghulis
Vinyl really does sound better as long as your stylus and system are of good quality,
and the record isn't damaged/scratched, causing pops and other noises.
For portable players, I use MP3 files for storage sake, but use fairly high quality in-ear phones.
and the record isn't damaged/scratched, causing pops and other noises.
For portable players, I use MP3 files for storage sake, but use fairly high quality in-ear phones.
kidsmoke
Well-known member
Jx2 said:
I know this isn't the crux of the thread, but thought I'd answer anyway. I was a record store manager in Pasadena in1985/86. At that point we had album bins, cassette walls, AND CD bins, although CD bins were the thinnest. What a royal pain that was. And trying to determine which quantities to stock of a given recording in which format.....yeesh!
Cassettes ruled for a pretty short time. I remember buying Back in Black, Van Halen I, Cheap Trick at Budokan, and (gulp) Get the Knack on vinyl in 78/9, early 80's was all cassettes, then by 85 CD's were out.
These were the days when people would come in and say "I just bought a CD player, what CD's should I buy?"
I'd give them Dark Side of the Moon, Holst's "Planets" and Tchaichovsky's 1812, and told them to see me in a week.
Interesting that Floyd's Dark Side, a 1971/2 recording, clearly Analog, was the number one selling compact disc for YEARS and is still one of the top selling albums of all time, based largely on it's resurgence with the Digital era.
discuss.....:dude
deeaa
Well-known member
Fact: Vinyl does NOT provide 'better' sound in technical terms by any means.
Fact: CD quality far surpasses the quality of any vinyl system in terms of frequency range and such.
Still, vinyl does sound better in many cases to me too. Why?
Think of an artistic closeup picture of a pretty woman. Isn't she much more beautiful when the camera is focused just right in the eyes and such, drawing the attention?
Now consider a technically perfect photograph of the same woman. Every wrinkle visible, every pore a gaping hole staring at the viewer.
It's the same with vinyls.
Fact: when a recording is transferred to vinyl and CD they require different mastering applied. Vinyl simply cannot hold ultra deep bass for instance (that's why there are EP's - the large size and short time can fit much better bass than normal LP size).
This results in vinyl mixes having emphasized higher basses (same with highs) and that makes them often sound better in real life systems alone.
And, as in the question of a pretty woman - clearer and better isn't necessarily better to the ear.
This is further alleviated by many many records being transmitted to CD without any remastering. This usually ends up providing a recording that is way too clear and way too sterile.
Much like a tube amp nicely warms up the sound, so does vinyl. But it's not better, it's actually much worse, but sounds nicer.
A good example are the first AC/DC albums. They're mixed so that when you play them off vinyl, the vinyl literally compresses and rounds up those raw guitars. The RIAA circuits further change the sound, much like a drive pedal really. The result is strong, killer sound.
The same on CD, just as it was first mastered---way too sharp and ugly guitars. Hence the later remasters for CD audio requirements and MUCH better sound.
Analog recording...same difference. It's easy to saturate recording tape for instance, which makes guitars sound that much thicker. You use the tape as a part of the effects chain. Digital, can't do that.
But still, it cannot be sensibly argued that analog tech would be in any ways superior, that's simply just not true. But, what people have learned to do with it and use it to affect the sound to their liking, well, it has many many years of expertise to it and IMO only of late the recording business has really caught up with this.
But it's everywhere...people hate a preamp that is perfect; you need to muck it up just right by using tubes, because in reality ears abhor a perfect sound, they require just the right amount of extra harmonics and extra warmth and dirt there. It's just as in the nature where things have endless variation and sound changes...it feels unnatural to humans to hear perfect audio.
Fact: CD quality far surpasses the quality of any vinyl system in terms of frequency range and such.
Still, vinyl does sound better in many cases to me too. Why?
Think of an artistic closeup picture of a pretty woman. Isn't she much more beautiful when the camera is focused just right in the eyes and such, drawing the attention?
Now consider a technically perfect photograph of the same woman. Every wrinkle visible, every pore a gaping hole staring at the viewer.
It's the same with vinyls.
Fact: when a recording is transferred to vinyl and CD they require different mastering applied. Vinyl simply cannot hold ultra deep bass for instance (that's why there are EP's - the large size and short time can fit much better bass than normal LP size).
This results in vinyl mixes having emphasized higher basses (same with highs) and that makes them often sound better in real life systems alone.
And, as in the question of a pretty woman - clearer and better isn't necessarily better to the ear.
This is further alleviated by many many records being transmitted to CD without any remastering. This usually ends up providing a recording that is way too clear and way too sterile.
Much like a tube amp nicely warms up the sound, so does vinyl. But it's not better, it's actually much worse, but sounds nicer.
A good example are the first AC/DC albums. They're mixed so that when you play them off vinyl, the vinyl literally compresses and rounds up those raw guitars. The RIAA circuits further change the sound, much like a drive pedal really. The result is strong, killer sound.
The same on CD, just as it was first mastered---way too sharp and ugly guitars. Hence the later remasters for CD audio requirements and MUCH better sound.
Analog recording...same difference. It's easy to saturate recording tape for instance, which makes guitars sound that much thicker. You use the tape as a part of the effects chain. Digital, can't do that.
But still, it cannot be sensibly argued that analog tech would be in any ways superior, that's simply just not true. But, what people have learned to do with it and use it to affect the sound to their liking, well, it has many many years of expertise to it and IMO only of late the recording business has really caught up with this.
But it's everywhere...people hate a preamp that is perfect; you need to muck it up just right by using tubes, because in reality ears abhor a perfect sound, they require just the right amount of extra harmonics and extra warmth and dirt there. It's just as in the nature where things have endless variation and sound changes...it feels unnatural to humans to hear perfect audio.
Eric
Well-known member
There we go -- that's the sort of post I was hoping would come along eventually.
Most of this falls in line with what I was trying to say earlier, so it's good to know I'm not that far off. That's interesting about the mastering stuff.
Most of this falls in line with what I was trying to say earlier, so it's good to know I'm not that far off. That's interesting about the mastering stuff.
Eric
Well-known member
BTW, throughout this discussion I've been thinking about how I once heard that Neil Young really really hated the sound of CDs when they were first taking over. I think eventually there was some audio treatment that came out that helped make them sound better, and maybe one of his CDs was going to be the first to use it or something.
Still, that falls right in line about what you say about the sound on a CD. The sound was probably too sterile and sharp, particularly since that was near the beginning of CDs.
Still, that falls right in line about what you say about the sound on a CD. The sound was probably too sterile and sharp, particularly since that was near the beginning of CDs.
Tig
Valar Morghulis
Eric said:
That might be partly why he is using Blu Ray for his Archives: Vol. 1.
Here's a really good interview with Neil from 2007 that he lets is all out on MP3's, etc.:
Wonder how Young feels about the ongoing debate over the impact of the MP3 format on sound quality? He's pretty clear on it.
[When it first came out] "digital music sounded like ****," he said in the interview. "It was no fun to listen to turned up. Instead of water poured on you it was like being attacked with ice picks. [His recordings on Blu-ray] are like snowflakes."
"I don't listen to music, it's in my head. Putting on headphones is like hell for me. I can hear an mp3 from a half mile away because the air has a chance to make it sound natural."
Young said that MP3 was convenient - but that it's like a vision of paradise that's only inches deep and slams you in the face when you try to walk into it. "I'm a music guy, a sound guy - I went through hell in the 80's," he said. "Now we're coming close, climbing up the quality wall. I make all my music analog, when a new format comes along I will dump all my music to it." Would he advise other musicians to do the same? He said that wasn't realistic. "I'm too rich and elitist, most people can't afford the machines [for analog recording] and the people to take care of them." Young says he's been hoarding tape for a long time, sometimes recording over content that didn't work out.
Eric
Well-known member
Pretty interesting. I find that particularly interesting since a lot of his work isn't exactly in what I'd call tone-snob territory. More like strangled notes and beat-you-over-the-head-with-volume rock. I mean, I like it and it's effective, but I wouldn't expect someone with that sort of approach to be an audiophile, if you get what I'm saying.
Tig
Valar Morghulis
I get ya'.
When you look at how "antiquated" his gear, plus his musical style, you wouldn't expect him to be so into advanced technology. The thing is, he really likes the organic sound from his old equipment, but some modern technology homoginizes it, so he sought out even higher tech that didn't kill the original sound.
When you look at how "antiquated" his gear, plus his musical style, you wouldn't expect him to be so into advanced technology. The thing is, he really likes the organic sound from his old equipment, but some modern technology homoginizes it, so he sought out even higher tech that didn't kill the original sound.
deeaa
Well-known member
It's funny about the MP3's because I for one have a very mixed feeling about it. I try to only use 320 quality mode in converts, and I'd say that really really requires very very good equipment to hear differences to a CD, but there is still some.
But anyway. The MP3 format is what C-cassettes used to be, for me. They were certainly worse for audio than vinyl, even with the addition of dolby B an C later, and adjustable biases and all like on my later cassette decks, but people forgave the shortcomings because they were just so damned handy.
And also, since dolby process is fundamentally a compression/decompression process and magnetic tape can be physically saturated with sound, C-cassettes sound magnificent IMO for much of the 80's metal music. Especially some hair-rock like Twisted Sister and such only sound right to me when heard thru a boombox and a C-cassette. MAN those guitars sound RAD, especially when you had recorded it off vinyl using Dolby B for instance and played back in a boombox with NO dolby, in which case it was like using an expander on it, WOW! What extra clarity and bite - noise too, but who cared, LOL
Engineers have always done different mixes and masters for different purposes, there are 'radio mixes' and CD and vinyl and no doubt cassette masters made differently to compensate...and one thing that happens these days is people make different masters for their MySpace etc. pages. I've tried that too, and it's true, if you just take a nice mix and send it to MySpace their pretty harsh compression really takes a toll on the sound of it.
I wish there was a plugin available that would mimic the MySpace etc. compression so you could make masters to compensate, but anyway it seems clear to me that when you're going to send an MP3 for MySpace you better master it first by reducing low basses and compensating in the 3000-6000Hz range (my best guess now) and - this I need to test further - apparently either send a less-than-normally compressed audio master or vice versa. I just don't have the time and energy of late to test this much further. But you get the point anyway.
Very interesting about Neil Young, he's definitely one of my heroes, not so much due to music and such but because he's such an unique player and just moons at technical skills and accurate tuning and all and still makes awesome stuff most of the time. I've read much about his perfectionism in sound - for instance that he always puts his spring reverb unit off stage so it won't tremble with stage movements, even if it means drilling holes in the stage...now that's pretty anal in my book
But anyway. The MP3 format is what C-cassettes used to be, for me. They were certainly worse for audio than vinyl, even with the addition of dolby B an C later, and adjustable biases and all like on my later cassette decks, but people forgave the shortcomings because they were just so damned handy.
And also, since dolby process is fundamentally a compression/decompression process and magnetic tape can be physically saturated with sound, C-cassettes sound magnificent IMO for much of the 80's metal music. Especially some hair-rock like Twisted Sister and such only sound right to me when heard thru a boombox and a C-cassette. MAN those guitars sound RAD, especially when you had recorded it off vinyl using Dolby B for instance and played back in a boombox with NO dolby, in which case it was like using an expander on it, WOW! What extra clarity and bite - noise too, but who cared, LOL
Engineers have always done different mixes and masters for different purposes, there are 'radio mixes' and CD and vinyl and no doubt cassette masters made differently to compensate...and one thing that happens these days is people make different masters for their MySpace etc. pages. I've tried that too, and it's true, if you just take a nice mix and send it to MySpace their pretty harsh compression really takes a toll on the sound of it.
I wish there was a plugin available that would mimic the MySpace etc. compression so you could make masters to compensate, but anyway it seems clear to me that when you're going to send an MP3 for MySpace you better master it first by reducing low basses and compensating in the 3000-6000Hz range (my best guess now) and - this I need to test further - apparently either send a less-than-normally compressed audio master or vice versa. I just don't have the time and energy of late to test this much further. But you get the point anyway.
Very interesting about Neil Young, he's definitely one of my heroes, not so much due to music and such but because he's such an unique player and just moons at technical skills and accurate tuning and all and still makes awesome stuff most of the time. I've read much about his perfectionism in sound - for instance that he always puts his spring reverb unit off stage so it won't tremble with stage movements, even if it means drilling holes in the stage...now that's pretty anal in my book
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Gig Report: Amber & the Antidotes at Cypress & Grove Brewery, 5/29/26- Latest: Brian Krashpad
-