Is Chronological Order Too Much To Ask For?

[MrGongGong]

I obviously didn't explain myself well! Umslopogaas is probably a far better advocate for vinyl than I am and can explain its characteristics more eloquently. However, as I understand it, vinyl is the only consumer playback format that's fully analog and fully lossless at source. Contrary to popular belief, CDs are not lossless. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) which means it is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate. A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier and requires no conversion from digital to analog. Having said that, vinyl has many issues in playback which you refer to. Not least it requires high end equipment to reach true audiophile quality. Like you I suspect a lot of the vinyl neophytes are converts because (a) they have been weaned on MP3 files and have come to associate that lossy format with digital; (b) rock music is flattered by vinyl (ie vinyl sounds well in the midrange frequencies); and (c) vinyl is "cool". I certainly wouldn't dream of calling vinyl "hi res", and only in certain rare cirumstances (outlined above) would I compare it with CDs, let alone hi res downloads.

It's a dangerous thing isn't it?
(A little knowledge, I mean )

This

"Some sounds that have very quick transitions will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate."

Is what is commonly known as b*llsh*t
Yes, I can hear the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit etc

When you watch TV do you object to the fact that 24 frames per second only samples a fraction of what you see ?

And what Bryn said (and you KNOW you can trust him because he was in the Scratch Orchestra )

[jayne lee wilson]

A wiser word was never said (by Alexander Pope, Essay on Criticism)...

“A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.”

[Serial_Apologist]

A wiser word was never said (by Alexander Pope, Essay on Criticism)...

“A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.”

Oh, on the gist one gets by, y'know...

[Beppe]

I obviously didn't explain myself well! Umslopogaas is probably a far better advocate for vinyl than I am and can explain its characteristics more eloquently. However, as I understand it, vinyl is the only consumer playback format that's fully analog and fully lossless at source. Contrary to popular belief, CDs are not lossless. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) which means it is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate. A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier and requires no conversion from digital to analog. Having said that, vinyl has many issues in playback which you refer to. Not least it requires high end equipment to reach true audiophile quality. Like you I suspect a lot of the vinyl neophytes are converts because (a) they have been weaned on MP3 files and have come to associate that lossy format with digital; (b) rock music is flattered by vinyl (ie vinyl sounds well in the midrange frequencies); and (c) vinyl is "cool". I certainly wouldn't dream of calling vinyl "hi res", and only in certain rare cirumstances (outlined above) would I compare it with CDs, let alone hi res downloads.

Vinyl is definitely not lossless in that every time you play a vinyl record, it is subject to wear that does not happen with digital. So over time your vinyl is losing clarity and definition by the wearing of the grooves.

[Sir Velo]

Vinyl is definitely not lossless in that every time you play a vinyl record, it is subject to wear that does not happen with digital. So over time your vinyl is losing clarity and definition by the wearing of the grooves.

Having said that, vinyl has many issues in playback which you refer to. Not least it requires high end equipment to reach true audiophile quality. Like you I suspect a lot of the vinyl neophytes are converts because (a) they have been weaned on MP3 files and have come to associate that lossy format with digital; (b) rock music is flattered by vinyl (ie vinyl sounds well in the midrange frequencies); and (c) vinyl is "cool". I certainly wouldn't dream of calling vinyl "hi res", and only in certain rare cirumstances (outlined above) would I compare it with CDs, let alone hi res downloads.

Beppe, I don't like being taken out of context. It would help if you had read my post(s) all the way through. I have made it clear I am not an apologist for vinyl, but when LPs are new and played on high end equipment then they can (note "can") achieve close to audiophile quality.

My listening is these days exclusively on CDs and increasingly on hi-res downloads and streams, which in my opinion exceed CDs for audio quality (let alone cassettes as some joker upthread would have it!).

[Serial_Apologist]

Beppe, I don't like being taken out of context. It would help if you had read my post(s) all the way through. I have made it clear I am not an apologist for vinyl, but when LPs are new and played on high end equipment then they can (note "can") achieve close to audiophile quality.

My listening is these days exclusively on CDs and increasingly on hi-res downloads and streams, which in my opinion exceed CDs for audio quality (let alone cassettes as some joker upthread would have it!).

That said, some, if not all, of my ancient vinyl has stood the test of time (and wear) remarkably well, as it's been relatively well looked after. And people love having the sleeves in their hands, and to pore over liner notes they don't need a magnifying glass to read.

[Bryn]

That said, some, if not all, of my ancient vinyl has stood the test of time (and wear) remarkably well, as it's been relatively well looked after. And people love having the sleeves in their hands, and to pore over liner notes they don't need a magnifying glass to read.

With those downloads which come with a pdf pf the booklet, the size of the text is up to the reader. Suits me.

[Sir Velo]

With those downloads which come with a pdf pf the booklet, the size of the text is up to the reader. Suits me.

As do most of the new releases on Qobuz as I'm sure you know. As a subscriber one is not just limited to those one purchases as downloads. Booklet notes on any release can be downloaded, saved and read at leisure, and printed should the desire take one.

[Bryn]

As do most of the new releases on Qobuz as I'm sure you know. As a subscriber one is not just limited to those one purchases as downloads. Booklet notes on any release can be downloaded, saved and read at leisure, and printed should the desire take one.

Indeed, though I do wish more of the recordings on QOBUZ came with booklet pdf files. Hyperion and some other 'labels' also make pdf files available. I suppose it is down to the rights holder whether to make them available online or not.

[Beppe]

Beppe, I don't like being taken out of context. It would help if you had read my post(s) all the way through. I have made it clear I am not an apologist for vinyl, but when LPs are new and played on high end equipment then they can (note "can") achieve close to audiophile quality.

My listening is these days exclusively on CDs and increasingly on hi-res downloads and streams, which in my opinion exceed CDs for audio quality (let alone cassettes as some joker upthread would have it!).

Well, I didn't mean to take you out of context, but did throw a curve at you. The question of durability, of course, depends on how much the disk is played and the quality of the equipment used. The old suitcase phonographs of the 1960s would surely degrade a disk in short order, but a high quality system with a light weight tonearm woulk help minimize wear. But I have to think that most peoples' ears won't discern a problem at 44,100 per second sampling rate. If we were to spread one second of music across a meter, you would have over 44 samples per milimeter. Seems extremely dense. to even see a break we probably would need to bump that second up to about 10 meters of space. Well, the eye isn't the ear, but it still seems to me like a very accurate representation.