Why does vinyl still exist?

[The Computer Audiophile]

"It does beg the question however, why use compression anyway ??"

 

Hi JCBrum - That's pretty much where I'm at as well. To me, compression is a thing of the past. However, it does come in to play when purchasing music online. It's one of those things where we have to ask ourselves if the quality is good enough to make the purchase online or if we still have to get the physical CD. I'm not willing to purchase anything less than lossless from an online store. Even if some of the lossy files sound good, I know I would end up purchasing the same material again when a lossless version is available. Hmm, maybe that's the master plan at the record labels. Get us to repurchase out libraries without even chanring the format, just the resolution :~)

 

[mpmct]

I happen to have paid the $30 for a Quicktime Pro license because

I needed to make down & dirty compressed audio files some years ago.

It allows exporting to a variety of codecs and rates.

Rumors are that the "Pro" capability might be included with forthcoming Mac 'Snow Leopard' OS:

 

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/09/apple-to-integrate-quicktime-pro-features-in-snow-leopard/

 

If that happens, along with the Mac freebie ABXer, folks will be able to decide for themselves

with a few easy clicks, from their preferred recordings, on their gear.

 

I also picked up these headphones for reference:

 

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reference_earphones.htm

 

I cannot win an ABX test with some of the best recordings I happen to own,

unless I dummy them way down. I have to compress them

nearly to oblivion to win. I can't win between 128k AAC vs 256k AAC, VBR,

or at least haven't yet -- both versions compressed from original AIFF.

And I have yet to win: AIFF to 128k.

 

I find ABX testing exhausting when there are no immediately perceptible

differences -- when one knows one is doing a lotta guessing, or all guessing --

and that 20 comparisons are necessary if you're aiming

at reasonable statistical probability. And I also have no practical interest

in compressed files either, Apple Lossless is fine with me,

I have more than enough disk space and don't use my iPhone enough

for music that I need a million and one recordings on it. I'm just doing these

tests for ... fun. Although I find the ABX process ... not so fun.

 

Having said all that, from what I've decided for myself as a result

of 'hearing for myself' ... I grabbed Sinatra's "Only the Lonely" album

at iTunes last week, and it sounds fabulous against some of the best

recordings I own -- balanced, warm, clear, clean, and detailed.

 

 

[mpmct]

"Hmm, maybe that's the master plan at the record labels. Get us to repurchase our libraries without even changing the format, just the resolution :~)"

 

That's my concern. And if the difference is only in the numbers,

not in what is audibly perceptible -- ala the test the Boston Audio Society

conducted that I've linked to previously, or with respect to

the warnings Dave Moulton makes in detail and at length on his site ...

 

The threat of spending another small fortune for a ton 'o bits, without

audible benefit ... been there, done that, with respect to spending on

audio-phernalia in general. I would have to hear the benefit.

I don't have any evidence for myself yet, that those bigger numbers

are necessarily better. If I ever *hear* differently, I'll take the plunge.

Or rather, dip a toe in, maybe. Until then ... "Trust everyone, but cut the cards." :-)

 

 

 

[jcbrum]

In my case I had a number of 128aac's which I purchased a while ago. Recently I Purchased some 256kaac and iTunes offered to upgrade all my 128's to 256 free of charge. It might have been a special offer, but I think it's standard practice now, whereas it used to cost 20p per song. So perhaps their master plan is to keep customers happy instead ??

 

JCBrum.

 

[shenzi]

I avoid it wherever possible for master files but it's useful for smaller devices and making mp3 CDs for the car. Long journeys go much better when you don't have to change the CD every hour ... (or fill the car with CD cases).

 

[mpmct]

"So perhaps their master plan is to keep customers happy instead ??"

 

Right. In the case of Apple/iTunes Store, definitely agree.

I took advantage of the same offer a short time ago.

Although I wasn't clear, I was thinking of the possibility

of repurchasing one's current CDs in higher resolution formats,

when/as those higher resolutions might be offered.

The Other Master Plan, maybe, and not free.

 

 

[usernaim250]

First, to rectify my imprecision, the delivery medium was an ipod 60GB and the file was not indeed literally redbook--but in fact a .wav at the redbook data spec of 16-bit, 44.1 khz.

 

Second, since by far the clearest signature of compression in my test was the sound of electronic bass drum and (sampled from LP, no doubt) snare, I suggest headphones might not be ideal monitors. I certainly wouldn't stake anything on my sonic judgments via headphones (and I have some very fine Beyerdynamic DT880s and 770s). The second most telling signature, by the way, was the sound of the surface noise of the record sampled for the track.

 

[tfarney]

"So perhaps their master plan is to keep customers happy instead ??"

 

Good plan. Regarding resolution, maybe I'm easy, or deaf, but I'm happy with 16/44.1, and what little hi-rez I've heard didn't sound much different to me. I still think it's all in the recording and mastering. I wonder if some day the record companies will offer a new generation of re-masters restoring dynamic range and decent eq to all the good stuff they've ruined in the late 90s and 2000s. That I'd buy. In the meantime, I'm browsing my neighborhood used CD store weekly. The stuff people almost give away there continues to amaze me...

 

Tim

 

ON EDIT: Hmmm...maybe not such a good plan after all. I just dropped by iTunes they still want to sell me upgrades of all my purchased music.

TF

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"ON EDIT: Hmmm...maybe not such a good plan after all. I just dropped by iTunes they still want to sell me upgrades of all my purchased music."

 

And I thought Apple was only trying to screw me over after I read all the coments about free upgrades :~)

 

[mpmct]

"ON EDIT: Hmmm...maybe not such a good plan after all. I just dropped by iTunes they still want to sell me upgrades of all my purchased music."

 

It's been maybe a month or two ago, don't remember, but they

offered my handful of long-ago downloads, upgraded to 256k for free.

Maybe that was a limited time offer.

 

[mpmct]

Usernaim, I should have mentioned that I also did these tests on an AVI 9.1 system,

and Linkwitz Orion system. Linkwitz includes some very nice

test tracks -- your typical test track fare, solo drums, solo bass drums,

breaking glass, and even what sound to me like very nicely recorded

single-mike or double-mike studio tracks. I tested with some of those too,

as many as I could stand. I might have permanently fried

previously useful brain tissue in the process, BTW.

 

My larger point was really: it will be a good thing

if more are able to test these things themselves, against their

gear/music/room/budget/taste, and whatever else enters into the equation.

Especially if access to that kind of testing is inexpensive and easy to execute,

if exhausting.

 

 

 

[jcbrum]

Maybe it's a UK thing ? (free upgrade to 256aac)

 

JC.

 

ps. Usernaim250, proper vinyl on a proper record player doesn't have surface noise, - mine don't. (well the junk shop one's do, - that's why they were in the junk shop !)

 

[audiozorro]

I don’t know why some folks spend a lot of time trying to convince other people that they couldn’t possibly hear what they hear or that some lossy compressed format is good enough.

 

I accept the fact that Ashley James loathes vinyl just as I accept some audiophile reviewers that hate CDs and loathe anything less than SACDs. I’m not in either camp and I have heard excellent sounding vinyl, CDs and SACDs, not that I care to convince anyone who is dead set against any of these formats.

 

I have no interest in seriously listening to any lossy format. I once loaded up my iPod with 320 kbps MP3 files, but now I just copy my uncompressed AIFF files over. I have also ripped DVD movies over to my iPod at the highest resolution possible. What I want is larger capacity drives to hold superior content and not lesser content on smaller drives.

 

I am thankful for the lossy files on the Internet. I appreciate the ability of listening to the music tracks of an album before buying. Digital, computers and the Internet brought this convenience to my home so the days of buying something I don’t like or that has only 1 or 2 good tracks is largely a thing of the past.

 

That said, I would never spend a nickel on lossy music files. To me, MP3s and the other lossy audio files are the free stuff on the Internet. I will repeat a history blurp from Wikipedia (in brackets) rather than provide the web link.

 

[From the first half of 1994 through the late 1990s, MP3 files began to spread on the Internet. The popularity of MP3s began to rise rapidly with the advent of Nullsoft's audio player Winamp (released in 1997), and the Unix audio player mpg123. In 1998, the Rio PMP300, one of the first portable MP3 players was released, despite legal efforts by the RIAA.

In November 1997, the website mp3.com was offering thousands of MP3s for free. The small size of MP3 files enabled widespread peer-to-peer file sharing of music ripped from compact discs, which would have previously been nearly impossible. The first large peer-to-peer filesharing network, Napster, was launched in 1999.

The ease of creating and sharing MP3s resulted in widespread copyright infringement. Major record companies argue that this free sharing of music reduces sales, and call it "music piracy". They reacted by pursuing lawsuits against Napster (which was eventually shut down) and eventually against individual users who engaged in file sharing.

Despite the popularity of the MP3 format, online music retailers often use other proprietary formats that are encrypted or obfuscated in order to make it difficult to use purchased music files in ways not specifically authorized by the record companies. Attempting to control the use of files in this way is known as Digital Rights Management. Record companies argue that this is necessary to prevent the files from being made available on peer-to-peer file sharing networks. This has other side effects, though, such as preventing users from playing back their purchased music on different types of devices. However, the audio content of these files can usually be converted into an unencrypted format. For instance, users are often allowed to burn files to audio CD, which requires conversion to an unencrypted audio format. Also, there are software and hardware solutions available that allow the user to record anything they can play.

Unauthorized MP3 file sharing continues on next-generation peer-to-peer networks. Some authorized services, such as Beatport, Bleep, Xiie.net, Juno Records, eMusic, and Amazon.com have begun selling unrestricted music in the MP3 format.]

 

If folks want to buy lossy digital files now and higher rez files later, that’s fine but I won’t be joining you.

 

 

 

 

[BEEMB]

 

... because I get home, sit back. listen to music and fire up this site nearly every day I get home ... after the gym (like now), after work, heck - even after a night out drinking ....

 

 

 

[tfarney]

"I don’t know why some folks spend a lot of time trying to convince other people that they couldn’t possibly hear what they hear or that some lossy compressed format is good enough."

 

We're really not trying to convince YOU. But when people are saying data compressed digital files sound horrible and vinyl is natural, well...we're just having a bit of a problem letting that kind of nonsense go unanswered on a public forum.

 

Is there a difference? Sure, I accept that. But this notion that mp3s sound horrible and FLAC or lossless is immediately recognizable and infinitely superior is just the latest in a long history of audiophile exaggerations the relatively small differences between what they listen to and what the more common music lover with good equipment listens to. I suppose I shouldn't complain. It is very practical and moderate compared to some of the cable and vibration arguments.

 

Tim

 

[audiozorro]

There is a difference. I didn’t say that MP3s sound horrible but I do say that it sounds inferior to FLAC or any other lossless format. That’s a far cry from someone who says he loathes vinyl, even though anyone has the right to say he loathes MP3s or vinyl.

 

The belief that vinyl sounds horrible and 128 kbps lossy compressed digital is adequate is minority position within the audiophile community. And perhaps, as so many have stated that, vinyl sounds better because of better mastering and recording techniques holds some of the rationale. After all we have had records for 100 years and digital just a fraction of that. And perhaps many of the shortcomings with CDs are the result of poor mastering and recording techniques that are not indicative of superior specs. Whatever the reason, there is a large number of audiophiles who feel that vinyl sounds superior to CDs.

 

If you or anyone wants to hate vinyl, that’s fine. Even those, like me, who love vinyl know all of its technical shortcomings. Despite these shortcomings, it still sounds superior. If you’re in a room of critical listeners and everyone says the vinyl system playing sounds fantastic except for you – what can I say except you have different tastes.

 

But what rationale does any audiophile have for saying that any lossy compressed digital file is good enough? The time for lossy compressed digital has past. Anyone can buy 64 GB USB memory sticks or 1 TB hard drives for $100. A year from now who knows what the capacities will be at that price point. When it comes to computer audio there is little justification for lossy digital audio that deliberately destroys data. I do and will continue to challenge any recommendation for lossy digital audio.

 

Perhaps you are appealing to the mid-fi or mass market. At times I get the impression that you have a disdain for the audiophile market based on past sour experiences. Again that’s your prerogative.

 

In my opinion even the Redbook CD standards of 16/44.1 was a compromise set too low. If you give me the choice, I will choose 24/88.2 or higher resolutions every time. When I don’t have a choice I may still buy 16/44.1, but I have never nor would I ever buy someone’s lossy audio files. Would I listen to MP3s – yes. Would I rather listen to lossless digital audio – you bet.

 

 

 

[tfarney]

I didn't say you accused mp3s of sounding horrible, but it has been said several times in a couple of threads here lately, without even discriminating between 128 and 320. And it's a pretty incredible point of view.

 

I, too, would choose lossless over lossy and, in fact, do so every time I rip a cd. That has little to do with the audiophile habit of overstating differences to such an absurd degree that they invite the raised eyebrows of all but their own bretheren.

 

I don't loathe vinyl, that's Ash. I do laugh when you guys tell me it is superior though. It simply is not, by any objective measure, and I'd take that "roomful of discriminating listeners challenge" in a heartbeat. Give me a roomful of mastering engineers or classical musicians comparing the same masters on the same systems and I'd bet on digital every time. Give me a roomful of vinyl-centric audiophiles and of course they'll choose vinyl -- even blind. They know what it sounds like and they've concluded that it sounds like music.

 

I suppose I do have a bit of disrespect for the audiophile market. I can't think of many other product categories that have delivered less real value and more puffery. There are many notable exceptions, of course, but an awful lot of the audiophile world of the past couple of decades has, IMO, delivered little more than sub-midfi wrapped in fancy boxes and served up with a side exclusivity. I'd take a hefty Cambridge Audio integrated amp over most esoteric kit any day. And I'd do it by specs or by ear and spend a fraction doing so.

 

I suppose "disdain" is a pretty good word.

 

Tim

 

[PeterSt]

Did anyone ever attend an ABX session to discern CD from vinyl ?

 

[tfarney]

But I suspect that it would be easy to discern CD from vinyl. The controversy there is over the quality of the difference, not the audibility.

 

Tim

 

[Ashley James]

Tim

 

You have it in one. When you make an immediate change, the image collapses and the sound becomes harsher etc.

 

Whatever anyone says about manipulation of the records or digital recordings, you still have to compare the vanishingly low noise and distortion of the CD playing system with all the problems in a record player.

 

Surely the difference is acknowledged and it is just what some people prefer to listen to.

 

Ash

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Well said Zorro.

 

[徐中銳]

« The New York record shop Other Music will close its doors on June 25, after over two decades in business. We asked the co-owner Josh Madell about the records that represent the soul of his store. » :

[PopPop]

Interesting. Although this is a zombie thread, I wonder how many attitudes have changed given new technologies in vinyl and digital audio.

[wgscott]

Necro-posting about the demise of necro-technology and a necrotic medium.

[Norton]

Why does vinyl still exist? Apparently because it's a more interesting subject than computer audio if it's necessary to resurrect a 7 year old thread that was somewhat off topic for this forum in the first place.

 

My advice for those who don't like vinyl is to try and avoid listening to records.