Posted: 12/25/2001 9:28:23 PM EDT
|
I have some time off an one chore is to clean out the computer room. So I found about 400 5.25" diskettes in a closet. I was planning on using the diskette holders for CDs. But what about the 5.25" diskettes, should I stick them in a box and forget about them again, or toss them? |
|
See the difference is the 5 and a quarters have become obsolete while the vinyl has not. In fact digital replay has only recently (SACD and DVD-Audio) approached the fidelity offered by vinyl records. Long story short--toss the old floppies, either clean the vinyl and get a decent 'table and listen to 'em or give to someone who will enjoy them. Unless of course all your vinyl collection is Barry Manilow and Michael Bolton albums--in that case....target practice. |
|
Quoted: In fact digital replay has only recently (SACD and DVD-Audio) approached the fidelity offered by vinyl records. This is, in fact, untrue. Vinyl definitely has a different sound than CDs (at least for many recordings), but few realize that the difference is due to the MASTERING process. Masters for vinyl are made with the limitations of vinyl in mind. They are equalized differently, and dynamically compressed. This will certainly sound *different* than a CD, but that's largely because the masters themselves sound different. Some people prefer the sound from LPs vs. CDs, probably because they are used to the modifications necessary to get adequate reproduction out of vinyl. But a *preference* for vinyl isn't the same as vinyl having more potential fidelity than CDs. In truth, both formats have their limitations, but the only real advantages vinyl has is the larger cover art and the ease of mechanical manipulation for DJ-type "mixing." In every other way, they are eclisped by CDs. -Troy |
|
Not to take this post hostage, but you're wrong Troy--at least regarding fidelity CD versus vinyl. In head to head tests, vinyl repeatedly outperforms CD. 16 bits simply is not enough to convey music, and then add in piss-poor mastering in many cases and CD is doomed. I'm talking 16 bit CD here, not the new hi-res formats. the only thing CD has over vinyl is convenience and given proper care--longevity. Not a direct attack on you, Troy. It just appears you haven't heard vinyl on any decent ($300) 'table or you get all you info from Consumer Reports and the old Stereo Review. |
|
Quoted: Not to take this post hostage, but you're wrong Troy--at least regarding fidelity CD versus vinyl. In head to head tests, vinyl repeatedly outperforms CD. 16 bits simply is not enough to convey music, and then add in piss-poor mastering in many cases and CD is doomed. I'm talking 16 bit CD here, not the new hi-res formats. the only thing CD has over vinyl is convenience and given proper care--longevity. Not a direct attack on you, Troy. It just appears you haven't heard vinyl on any decent ($300) 'table or you get all you info from Consumer Reports and the old Stereo Review. I'm with Troy. So what are these "head to head" tests you speak of anyway? Any analog format has noise introduced in the mechanical medium and analog filters/processing (i.e. stereo seperation) that digital does not. Also I'm asking this because I don't know, does vinyl have Dolby Digital Surround encoding? |
|
Well, my first career was as an Audio Engineer, and my turntable (direct-drive, linear-tracking) has a $400 [b]cartridge[/b] in it (circa 1986), and sounds, given it's limitations, fantastic. But here again, you are making characterizations of the CD format based (at least sometimes) on poor mastering. Well, duh, if the master is crappy, then of course the duplicates of that master will be. The true test is to create an LP and a CD from the SAME master. Of course, the natural dynamic compression you get from vinyl will still change the perceived sound, and there are certainly those who have a preference for that sound, but again, that isn't the same thing as fidelity. I take hyper-good care of my vinyl, as a lot of it is irreplacable and the music will never be available on CD. Much of it has only been played a couple of times, to transfer the music to another medium. Still, there are clicks, pops, hiss, and other noise, limited dynamics, and don't forget that vinyl degrades every time it is played. Could CDs be better? Yes. It would have been great if they had STARTED with the quality of SACD or DVD-Audio. But very, very few people will actually care enough at this point to purchase either format. There just isn't a big enough market for it, given the quality of the sound system AND listening environment required to tell the difference. For example, of the over a hundred car stereos I've ever heard, less than five of them even approached decent, balanced sound. Most people's home stereo speakers are placed in locations that are convenient, regardless of sound quality. But all that is okay. CDs still sound pretty darn good, assuming the person making the master knows what he's doing. Any format can sound only as good as the master it is attempting to reproduce. -Troy |
|
You're right, Troy--on many counts. Thanks also for mentioning your audio background. But to the point, no I am not making these judgements based on faulty CD mastering (which is rampant as you probably know), but rather on what you cited. Two sources from the same master, one on vinyl, one on CD. Even folks with no background other than $200 bookshelf stereos have been able to tell the difference in sound QUALITY. Words spoken from these "amateurs" range from the vinyl "had more life" to the CD "seemed to shrink the space". Not even taking into account tests revealing vinyl actually RELAXES folks while digital (16 bit CD that is) STRESSES folks. The fact remains 16 bits was not enough to convey all that music is--even with the best mastering. Yes, vinyl does have pops, clicks, hisses, but hey our beloved ARs use gas blowback and foul the BCG. It would appear you can't have it all, but at least in my experience (and others) vinyl has bested 16 bit digital time and time again in SOUND QUALITY. And the funny thing is, these differences are audible in vinyl front-ends costing under $500 versus digital front-ends priced well over $1K. What can I say? It appears we agree to disagree. For me music playback is a spiritual endeavor, not a background activity. Music reminds me that we are more than organs, flesh and blood. Time and time again for myself and others, vinyl does that better than 16-bit digital. Edited to add one more question. Troy, you're not one of those folks who thinks the $1.29 RCA patch cords included with most electronic purchases sound as good as say even budget Audioquest interconnects are you? |
|
Well, we're now in the realm of opinion and preference, given that you aren't talking about measurable data, but rather perception. No question that whenever two things are different, you'll have some people who like one over the other. And, no, I don't use crappy cables. I use decent, though not "ultra-high end" cables, which are generally way overkill for the current and frequencies traveling through them. Keep in mind too that the sound in any pro studio is patched in via 20ga twisted-pair wires, not $3/foot Monster Cable. I concentrate more on speakers (and their placement) than anything else, because they have by far the largest impact on the sound that you hear. I always laugh when people fight over .002% THD between CD players, but they're listening though their brother's hand-me-down Kenwood speakers that came with his all-in-one-box stereo in 1982. [:)] -Troy |