File: 18 KB, 300x202, Compact-Disc1-300x202.jpg [
Show reposts] Image reverse search: [
iqdb] [
google]
No.54231722 [
Reply] [
Original]
Reminder: It's 2015, why are you not listening to the best physical music format there is?
1. They sound better than vinyl, due to the lack of surface noise. Too many times have I listened to a record and it sounded like noisy shit and I just decided to put on the cd or digital file instead. It even happens with new records occasionally. And I clean my records and no I don't have a low quality turntable like a Crosley.
2. Analog does NOT sound better than digital. Sorry analog purists. Double blind testing has proven that you can not tell the difference between vinyl and lossless digital. It's pure snake oil.
3. You can play them without having to worry about wearing them out.
4. Some genres like Ambient and classical sound awful on vinyl due to the surface noise being extremely distracting unless you have near mint condition copies. Even very slight noise can be distracting with genres like those.
5. Most cds have protective jewel cases which protects the artwork from getting stained or worn unlike record sleeves.
| >> | No.54231748
6. They are smaller and take up less space so you can own far more of them without having to worry about them taking up too much space, are easier to move, and they still offer a nice looking object you can look at and hold in your hands and cherish and potentially resell unlike worthless digital downloads.
7. You don't have to get up and flip sides. Also long songs don't work on vinyl at all since you have to split the track up which ruins the mood.
8. Cds often come with large interesting booklets with lots of interesting things to read about the band and photos, records usually don't.
9. You don't have to clean them for dust before playing them, and don't have to clean them for grime or smudges for the most part. And if you had to, its extremely easy. No need to buy some expensive vacuum cleaning machine.
10. Scratches on cds rarely effect the play unlike with records, unless you are a totally careless idiot, in which case you should just stick to mp3s and not bother with physical media.
11. They are easy and fast to upload to a computer. While you can also do needle drops or tape rips it takes a lot longer to do in comparison.
12. You can say "I liked cds before they became popular again." We all know the cd revival is gonna come eventually once the cassette revival is finished, might as well get on board early for extra /mu/ cred when it finally happens.
13. Cds are far less likely to get damaged than records. You can accidentally step on a jewel case that has a cd inside and it usually won't crack the cd, try that with a record and see what happens. Also if your USPS or UPS or whatever carrier is a loser they might try to fit the record in your mailbox by bending it and cracking it, or they might drop it or something, which wouldn't matter to a cd.
|
| >> | No.54236269
File: 52 KB, 748x306, DumbingDown.jpg [Show reposts] Image reverse search: [iqdb] [google]
 Don't listen to the op, /mu/. Continue to buy vinyl until the fuckhead sound engineers and studio mixers get their shit together and actually start taking advantage of the digital format.
People like the OP can't tell just how shitty modern digital releases are because they likely listen through a garbage pair of bookshelfs through an equally garbage amp, like one of those Chink Tripaths. But my God, play a digital recording from about post-1990 through good equipment and it's nails-on-a-chalkboard harsh, compressed into oblivion and mastered loud so it'll sound decent on earbuds or laptop speakers.
Pre-Loudness War CDs sound good, indistinguishable from vinyl in most cases, since they were usually straight copies of the analog master, but avoid all but the best mixes.masters of the past 20+ years. Straight trash.
>But modern vinyl is just mp3s pressed on it...hurr durrr derp
It is impossible to make an LP sound like digital. Even though the vinyl might be cut from the same shitty digital master, concessions still have to made, since an LP can't go as loud as a CD without the needle jumping out of the groove. This means that godawful loudness and compression is mitigated on the vinyl copy through the transfer. Just go to the dynamic range database and examine the DR of vinyl vs digital on modern recordings.
Yeah, it's 2015 and we've taken a quantum leap backwards in audio quality.
http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/the-dumbing-down-of-audio
|
| >> | No.54236878
>>54236722
>If that was true, no one would be listening to vinyl.
Wrong, people still listen to tapes, they get a lot of love on /mu/.
>CDs get scratched and become unplayable all the time
If you are a moron that doesn't know how to take care of them, yes. Even then you can usually have them buffed out.
>Clean the record.
I do clean them they sometimes still sound noisy even after multiple cleanings.
>which crack easily into plastic shards, extremely harmful and dangerous.
Not really.
>Many of them just won't play at all, depending on your model of CD player.
Stop treating your cds like shit then, or get a better cd player.
>They always effect play.
You are joking right? They almost never effect the play.
>Because of their mobility, CDs are more likely to be prone to scratches and smudges than vinyl, as they are more often transported to varying environments.
Again, stop taking shit care of them then. Not the cds fault if the owner is a moron.
|
| >> | No.54239891
File: 38 KB, 594x306, 1412563208300.jpg [Show reposts] Image reverse search: [iqdb] [google]
 >>54239617
'k, let's see:
>It is impossible to make an LP sound like digital. Even though the vinyl might be cut from the same shitty digital master, concessions still have to made, since an LP can't go as loud as a CD without the needle jumping out of the groove.
It doesn't work like that. The needle won't just "jump" out of the groove because, even in the worst and most retarded cases of poor mastering techniques, you just have to turn the volume down.
And you think that they'll go through every bit of the master, dimming things carefully just to get the release in a format that only few people buy? Fuck no, they just turn the volume down on everything. Done. Kinda how audio software dims things to prevent clipping, even it they end up sounding harsh... ohhh boy! Isn't it just the same thing? :^)
>Just go to the dynamic range database and examine the DR of vinyl vs digital on modern recordings.
Ohh boy, I wonder how?
Maybe it's because when you press the record it doesn't produce the exact same audio as the digital masters because it's MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DOING IT.
And ohh, wonder how will I check the dynamic range?
Oh, I know how! Running it through an ADC, obtaining a DIFFERENT recording than the master, because that's how analog works!
But surely my lovely vinyl masters took the time to carefully craft a different set of masters, just for my gatefold. Why wouldn't they?
|
| >> | No.54240077
File: 211 KB, 775x509, dense bitch, you!.png [Show reposts] Image reverse search: [iqdb] [google]
 >>54239617
But there's more!
>Pre-Loudness War CDs sound good, indistinguishable from vinyl in most cases, since they were usually straight copies of the analog master, but avoid all but the best mixes.masters of the past 20+ years. Straight trash.
Oh, of course! I'm sure that analog, which is highly susceptible to noise will produce the best digital recordings! Even if digital doesn't degrade, like magnetic tape! Brilliant!
Instead of sampling music at 48kHz, which gives us a top frequency of 24kHz in the recording (4kHz above the limit of the human ear, if you don't know) that is immune to deterioration, heat distortion, falls and is easy-peasy to store. It also enables you to modify it as you see fit, and as far as your audio knowledge takes you. But who would like to THAT, right?
>>But modern vinyl is just mp3s pressed on it...hurr durrr derp
Oh boy oh boy.
I'm sure that a professional wouldn't use lossy in their mastering. That would leave them as total retards to their peers!
Better use lossless masters, obtained straight through recording equipment.
Because every decent studio does that, don't you know?
>I never called into question the fidelity of digital, but how that fidelity (digital's 26DB dynamic range advantage for one) is abused for the sake of COMPRESSION and LOUDNESS WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY DEGRADES THE SOUND QUALITY. Nearly every audio engineer on planet earth agrees with that.
Oh, I know that.
It's fucking retarded. No disagreements there.
But it's not the method's fault. Just morons being just that: morons.
|
| >> | No.54240195
>>54239891
>It doesn't work like that. The needle won't just "jump" out of the groove because, even in the worst and most retarded cases of poor mastering techniques, you just have to turn the volume down.
Well yeah, and the result is a much better sounding mix. That's what I was getting at. I even specified, along with bad mastering, BAD MIXING. Cutting for vinyl forces reduction to the treble through a limiter, and that's where modern engineers/mixers are doing most of their dirty work these days when they abuse digital's DB advantage to that end.
> Consequently, an LP version of the same music can sound much more naturally mixed and mastered than its CD equivalent, which has been artificially "optimized" in the studio for use in noisy environments. Some compare the two and mistakenly attribute this difference to analog vs digital, without realizing that they are listening to two different masters. This is not an inherent flaw in CDs, but the result of deliberate marketing decisions made by music sellers.
>Ohh boy, I wonder how?
Maybe it's because when you press the record it doesn't produce the exact same audio as the digital masters because it's MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DOING IT.
And ohh, wonder how will I check the dynamic range?
Oh, I know how! Running it through an ADC, obtaining a DIFFERENT recording than the master, because that's how analog works!
Of course. But that still doesn't address the FACT (agreed on by pretty much everyone with a cursory to professional interest in this hobby) that modern mastering and mixing techniques has led to a massive decrease in sound quality. There's always exceptions, obviously (well mastered and mixed digital remasters, etc), but the overwhelming majority of modern music is mixed/mastered badly.
I don't even know what you're gripe is. You've already admitted the existence of shitty mastering techniques, and that's the problem I'm addressing.
|
| >> | No.54240356
>>54240077
>Oh, of course! I'm sure that analog, which is highly susceptible to noise will produce the best digital recordings!
Jesus, you're Mr. Strawman tonight, aren't you?
Is English your first language? Not an insult, but you seem to have trouble comprehending my essential point, despite me putting in about a thousand qualifiers clearly stating what my main issue with "modern recording techniques" is.
I never claimed a straight LP to CD transfer would produce "the best digital recordings" possible. My claim is that since LPs were carefully mastered and sounded pretty damn great despite their inherent flaws (noise floor, stereo separation, limited dynamic range, bass reproduction) vs digital, that a straight digital recording (needle drop) of an LP will sound much better than the compressed, overly loud digital recordings of today.
Sound engineers and mixers do not utilize digital's advantages to its potential these days for most modern recordings.
That's my issue. And as I said in another post, I have no idea what your gripe is since I'm not attacking the digital format in the slightest.
|