See for example the following conclusion: Humans are not capable of distinguishing "digital" from "analog". Iron Maiden-The Number of the Beast (1982)-Digital Iron Maiden-The Number of the Beast (1982)-Vinyl To easily see the difference, do listen to the plosives and sibilants like the letters "p" and "s" in the singing. Please compare these two examples to have a specific idea of what the difference is. The difference is in the production process. The difference should not be looked for in sampling rates or performance, etcetera. Summarizing, Is there evidence that the sound produced by vinyl records is either a) of better quality (via some declared standard of measurement) or b) more pleasing to humans compared to the sound produced by CDs? Ideally, this question might have been tackled in a manner similar to this question on bitrate and noticeable quality - essentially, with a Pepsi challenge between vinyl and CDs. Live music -> conversion of electrical signal to digital recording (file of some sort) -> conversion back to electrical signal to vibrate speakers.Live music -> conversion from electrical signal to digital recording (file of some sort) -> conversion to amplified electrical signal to vibrate a cutting stylus -> engraved record -> turntable -> conversion back to electrical signal to vibrate speakers.Thus, I see two paths from media to one's ear: Around 3:10, he states that the music signal is amplified and made to vibrate the stylus cutting the record master. This implies that it is already digitized. In that video, around 1:25 the interviewee states that a master is made from pre-recorded, mixed music. One reason I'm skeptical of the quality comparison has to do with how records are made. It’s warmer, more soothing, easier on the ears” ( Forbes Magazine - Vinyl vs. “Whether it’s a CD or a download, there’s a certain jaggedness to it. “Digital is zeroes and ones, man, anyway you look at it,” says Chuck Leavell, keyboardist for the Rolling Stones. Vinyl’s lasting appeal stems from a heady stew of nostalgia, tangibility and, perhaps most important of all, sound quality that musicians and fans often prefer to any other medium. The last three years have each set successive records for vinyl sales in the CD era. ( Google Answers: Vinyl LP sound versus CD sound). Therefore vinyl recording sound richer than CD recordings. A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. You can probably see where I am going: by definition a digital recording doesn't include all the sound information. Then converted to digital information with a certain precision. Recording they take 44,100 snapshots in a minute. Tonal quality and better fidelity than any CD. That the best of the now obsolete vinyl LP records had a superior Question: It is generally agreed among the serious listeners of classical music ( Wired Magazine - Vinyl May Be Final Nail in CD's Coffin). Since the audio on vinyl can't be compressed to such extremes, records generally offer a more nuanced sound. Although vinyl purists are ripe for parody, they're right about one thing: Records can sound better than CDs.Īlthough CDs have a wider dynamic range, mastering houses are often encouraged to compress the audio on CDs to make it as loud as possible: It's the so-called loudness war. Portability is no longer any reason to stick with CDs, and neither is audio quality. I've heard this here and there in various casual conversations (hopefully others will also qualify this in the "commonly heard" bucket of claims), but one can also find references online: Do expensive, “premium” speaker cables actually make a difference?.Are there any perceptible differences between the sound quality of 192 versus 320 kbps MP3 files?.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |