Vinyl vs. CD
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
Is there an audible difference?
If you take extremely good care of your records and have a high end turntable and sound system maybe then vinyl is better but nobody actually does that so no
>>60601702
Most music these days isn't mixed for vinyl, so no.
>>60601718
>vinyl is better
>>60601702
yes
all albums and all record players and all cd players sound different
>>60601702
I'll break it down for you
>Jazz
Vinyl > CD
>Rock
Vinyl > CD
>Classical Concert Music (Rococo onward)
Vinyl > CD
>Works for piano/harpsichord/lute/guitar soloists
Vinyl < CD
>Choral Works (Opera, Masses, Madrigals, etc.)
Vinyl <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CD
But yeah I say fuck both and get a reel to reel player.
they are usually mastered differently, so yes
Vinyl sounds "worse", which means it sounds less like eye artist intended to be.
You are going to get a cleaner sound with a CD, but a lot of people will disagree because they haven't listened to CD and because of the placebo of Vinyl sounding "warm".
>>60602144
>they are usually mastered differently, so yes
ITT it's the 80s
VINYL
1. Superior sound quality
2. Collectable
3. Exists in the corporeal realm
4. Can be sold
5. Make great frisbees
6. Pleasant psychological effect of owning plastic discs
7. Reproduces the actual recorded wave rather than an interpretation of it
8. Better dynamic range
9. Wider frequency response
10. Perfectly reproduces the pops and clicks CD and digital can't capture
11. Warmth
12. Isn't sterile and doesn't smell of disinfectant like digital does
13. Did I mention superior sound quality?
14. Infinite sound resolution
15. Digital = Literally Hitler
16. It's literally the only way to listen to music if you're serious about music and not just a poseur
17. Enjoy listening to digital on your $1 store headphones (or maybe your $20 skullcandies if you're *really* extravagant) and your phone
18. Objectively superior sound quality
>>60601702
I wouldn't say vinyl has superior clarity (because obviously it doesn't), but it just sounds deeper, more dense. I know that's a bit abstract but it's true.
Vinyl sounding better ("warmer") is just a placebo effect / confirmation bias / nostalgia goggles. CDs and good mp3 files sound just as good, assuming you have a decent setup
>>60602250
I would actually agree with this bait if vinyl were all mixed from analog recordings. But when you are just pressing vinyl from digital, half the shit you said goes out the window.
>>60602323
Yeah but Vinyl is fucking cool!
>>60602250
>5. Make great frisbees
Reminds me of playing frisbee with those AOL CDs back in the day. This was actually more challenging, so CDs win.
>thinking you can compare formats
na
recording/production/pressing and specific replay hardware is what actually matters
Only if you genuinely enjoy imprecise bass and those popping sounds.
I own a vinyl player and maybe 30-something records, and the sole reason is that vinyls are a different experience. I think many find it pretentious, but actually having to get your ass up and put on the vinyl, without being able to easily skip some songs and so forth actually makes for a really good experience.
I saw Loveless for like $5 in a pretty good condition at my local used-vinyl boutique, and even though I had only listened to Sometimes, a few times, listening to the record on vinyl kinda made it easier to sit through it all, and I ended up enjoying it a lot.
>>60602177
>>60602343
Except that conversion from a digitally mastered track (32bit 96khz sample rate) down to CD will lose quality (16bit 44.1khz). At least vinyl is analogue so it's the same sound quality as the original.
Now cds are better if you don't want pops and crackles but vinyl has that warmth that purely digital formats lose
I collect vinyl because its more personable than a CD, but I also collect CD's for albums that I haven't really listened to or new releases.
Here are some pros and cons
Vinyl
>collectable
>personable
>has a warmer sound
>sometimes come with additional cool artwork and swag
>looks amazing
Cons
>expensive
>you have to take care of them
>you have to have a good record player if you want the best sound
>limited portability
>Warping, and other people telling you how to do vinyl
CD
>portable
>you can get some good ass CD's for $3 at used CD shops
>cleaner sound
>also personable
>sometimes collectible
>durable
Cons
>not very collectable on a value scale
>scratches are a bitch
>lots of shit CD releases out there
>easy to find so the hunt is lessened.
I collect both as I said.
>>60602250
>4. Can be sold
The trend will eventually fade. Not to long ago no one wanted records.
>>60603826
>Except that conversion from a digitally mastered track (32bit 96khz sample rate) down to CD will lose quality (16bit 44.1khz).
The only "quality" lost is the presence of ultrasonic frequencies that only bats can hear.
Cd is more convent has has the best sound quality but I prefer records as I enjoy the analog which sounds more raw rather than digital . It's also in great packaging and is fun to collect for
>>60603315
Not likely. It's not about vinyl becoming popular but more that the convenience of CDs is getting less appealing now with digital downloads being so common and easy.
Vinyl pros and cons:
Pros:
+ Vinyl records look nice and playing them feels a bit like a ritual. There's a certain charm to that.
+ Some albums are mastered differently on CD and on vinyl; when that's the case, the vinyl version is often preferable because many recent CD releases tend to be mastered "as loud as possible", resulting in clipping distortion and a butchered dynamic range (check out http://dr.loudness-war.info before you decide which version to buy).
+ Vinyl has been around for decades now and probably isn't going to go away anytime soon, whereas optical discs are on the way out; as for digital files, it's hard to know for how long mp3s and FLACs will be supported.
+ There are a few cool gimmicks which you can only get on vinyl, like locked grooves.
Cons:
- Expensive.
- Requires an expensive setup too. Bad equipment can rapidly damage your records.
- Surface noise is always there, whether you want it or not — you can't get a "perfect" clean sound on vinyl.
- Distortion is always there too.
- The sound quality can vary a lot depending on the quality of the pressing. And yes, it can get really bad.
- A 12" record can only hold up to ~25 minutes of music per side; meaning that if your album originally has seamless transitions and/or long tracks, they will have to be split up, which ruins the flow.
Notes:
• Those pictures that show a smooth curve for analog audio and stairsteps for digital are very misleading; the sample rates used on digital media are high enough that the human ear can't tell the difference, and you don't get "stairsteps" on digital audio because of the way DACs work (see: https://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml). In practice, digital audio offers better fidelity than analog.
• Many records are pressed from digital masters anyway.
• If you have good equipment, record wear is usually negligible.
• How long CDs actually last is unknown; some CDs are known to be affected by disc rot over time, others are still fine after decades.
>>60604115
>not actually owning your music
>>60601702
Vinyl has extreme amounts of distortion and a high noise floor, Fucking cassettes have less distortion
>>60604122
>some CDs are known to be affected by disc rot over time, others are still fine after decades
A properly pressed CD that's taken care of will last beyond your lifetime. The CDs that get disc rot are those that are not taken care of properly and exposed to excessive sunlight. It's really not hard to keep your CDs in order; just put them in your closet somewhere.
>>60604140
can you not just feel that nice heat coming offf of it though, that warmth.
Vinyls are fun
It feels more like you "own" the album than with CD.
The artwork is bigger
You can impress hipsters
>>60604159
There is no problem liking vinyl, just dont say its better than CDs or digital
>>60603257
Someone also made this.
>>60603900
>personable
>sometimes come with swag
What?
>scratches are a bitch
Not if you take care of them.
>lots of shit CD releases out there
Oh come on, how is that a con at all?
>easy to find so the hunt is lessened.
But that's a good thing.
>>60604188
>It feels more like you "own" the album than with CD.
I honestly feel the opposite.
>>60604218
>>easy to find so the hunt is lessened.
But that's a good thing.
It's not even really true.
>>60602177
>the placebo of Vinyl sounding "warm".
isn't this also said about cassettes?
>>60604050
96khz and 44.1khz refer to the sampling rate, not the frequency range. That's how many times a second measurements are taken during analogue to digital conversion
>>60601702
Vinyl
-I honestly love how shitty some records sound due to damage and being played a shit ton. It adds some cool effect to older songs.
-Some bands have different masters or better masters. The vinyl Beetle remasters are so much better than the 2009 remasters.
CD/digital
-Can sound better than vinyl
-Easier to use
-Smaller
-Easier to move around
>>60604241
>I don't understand how digital sampling works
I'm well aware that it refers to the sampling rate. However, by the sampling theorem, the digital wave can be completely reconstructed into an analog with sufficient samples and using a cut off frequency, AKA the Nyquist rate. So in fact yes, the only thing you "lose" with 44.1kHz are inaudible ultrasonic frequencies.
>>60604241
No, that is frequency range
http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Sample_Rates
and it has little to do with quality
>>60604202
It does if you don't like cold dry crunchy shit or shitty digital eqs
>>60604297
Epic meme, vinyl nigger
>>60604240
It's not a placebo and there are quite a few high end studios who use take emulation hardware like the Rupert neve portico for the warmth it adds
>>60604297
Wrong. Vinyl is cold, dry and lonely while CD is warm and friendly.
>>60604240
Its called distortion
>>60604115
?
Im talking about what makes things sound good
>>60604279
So why is dithering used when dropping from 32bit/96khz to lower rates? If there was no difference it wouldn't be necessary
>>60604357
Because 96kHz isn't an integer multiple of 44.1kHz so resampling isn't as simple as cutting out every other sample.
It still doesn't matter though.
>>60604385
So then recording and mastering studios may as well only offer 16/24 bit 44.1/48khz recordings. Anything higher is a waste by your logic
>>60604430
Well yeah and that's what they do 99% of the time. There's snake oil audiophile releases out there, but it's in the minority. Higher bit depths and sampling rates are needed when working with audio, but for playback 16/44.1 is more than sufficient.
>>60604430
Studios use 32/192 for mastering in effort not to fuck up the recording, but yes, anything more than 16/44.1 is pretty much placebo.
>>60602059
this
vinyl sound is more suited for some kinds of music than others, but reel to reel is probably the most neutral
>>60601799
>muh reading comprehension
>>60601718
This, a mile. There are those very richfags that spend 5 figures on speakers alone but too bad their taste in music is shit.
>>60604521
This makes zero sense.
>>60601898
This, I take a CD-RW with a selection of different kinds of music with very different styles of production with me when I go to buy a new CD player. Always test in-store and try to imagine how it'll sound in a different environment, the room you're going to be putting it in.
