My opinion: The CD format will always kick the LP's ass when it comes to having the capability of providing better fidelity,
greater
dynamic range, clear channel separation, no surface noise, little mechanical (drive) noise and playing a media that last a really long time (as compared to records).
Does that mean that you will always like the sound of a CD better? Don't think so. But when people say "LP's sound better than digital," what they really are saying is "I like the sound of LP's better." Because.....
Listening to records is an experience. One upon which I was raised.
Today, the turntable is complicated looking and cool. An LP is big, flat and interesting. The album cover has tons of info and the paper sleeve is an added attraction. the LP is carefully slid out of the sleeve making sure the fingers only touch the center label and the edge. The vinyl sparkles when new and clean. The manual turntable starts turning with a click and the tone arm is raised with the cuing lever. ..carefully moved to the desired starting positing and lowered by the dampened arm. There is a satisfying sound as the needle first tracks in the grove...knowing that soon the music will start. Vinyl record listing is not just about the music; it is about the whole experience.
If you like records better, no one should have a problem with that....unless you follow with the nonsense phrase: "LP's sound better than CD's." |
In my experience, there is no such thing as a "long play album." This terminology is being confused with the correct "long playing record." An "album" is usually considered the volume of work that is recorded on the record or CD.
After the large diameter, high speed 78rpm records came the 45rpm - a smaller diameter record that was typically one song on each side. Then technology allowed us to play recordings at 33rpm on a record of much larger diameter with good fidelity. Those vinyl discs became known as "Long Playing" records (or "LP’s") because you could get (typically) five or six songs on each side.
|
Calling anything that comes on a disk of vinyl an LP strikes me as having the same logic as calling my HP printer/scanner/copier a Xerox machine. It's an antiquated misuse of terminology that dates the user to a generation born before about 1970.
Poor analogy, I think. And you are making up terminology that you think you heard used in a certain way when you were little...when the rest of us were already grownups. You cannot reach back into history and say something is wrong because it has been morphed into a different use or meaning by your (younger) generation. LP's and Long Playing Records are terms that came about in the 50's and 60's to describe vinyl disc products. You can use the terms anyway you want. But calling a tape or digital disc recording an LP is just silly. |
I give up, kosst. You are riding some different wavelength I don't understand. |
This "ragged edge" theory has been around for years and disproved a number of times. In any case, it is just an opinion and should be stated as such in your post.
Also, while some may find the sound reproduction of analog more pleasing (for whatever reason) digital CD recordings are, and were designed to be, far superior to standard LP recordings in every way that matters. And, in my opinion, they are. No amount of money spend on beefy turntables and complex tonearms will produce the dynamic range of which the LP is incapable. |
sleepwalker: Assuming your post is scientifically accurate, I'd opine that you are addressing facets of the recording process that are well beyond the ability of the human ear to detect. Therefore, to me, irrelevant. |
Phomchick: "This is a oft repeated and persistent argument against digital audio, but it is a myth. It stems from a lack of understanding of sound........."
A well written and understandable post about a subject few really comprehend. Thanks for the voice of reason! |
Liz: can we/you please stay on point. What's going on inside men's pants (as you view it) has no place here. Why not, instead, tell us how all those diamond studded recepticles cooking on your refrigerator are progressing - much more humor and entertainment there and it is at least remotely related to audio. |
jumperboy2 says: CDs - Just more practical. I still have CDs that are well over 10 years ago.
Ha-ha....is ten years supposed to be a long time? My first CDs were purchased back in 84 and they still sound fine. Goodness, that was 34 years ago!! |
It has allways has amazed me analog that was created 100+ years ago sounds better than present technology.
OK....that is just a silly statement. Do a little research on how records were produced in 1918. |
My point was to debunk your assertion that a "record" over 100 years old sounds better that current technology...which I assume is digital recording. That is the silliness I was referring to.
If that is not what you meant then you stated an opinion but expressed it as if it were a fact. |
Well, it is my opinion, that vinyl can sound very pleasing. That combined with the whole experience (cool looking turntable, album cover and sleeve, setting the record on the platter, cuing up the tonearm, etc.) makes if certainly very different. There is no way to scientifically demonstrate that analog vinyl technology (even at it’s best) can be better than redbook digital...in fact, Sony and Phillips engineers and scientists built that technology specifically to be a better medium than analog.
Can LPs sound good to the ear? Sure they can. Can they sound better to YOU that digital? Sure they can. Does that make the LP a "better" playback medium? Not a chance. Just because YOU like it better (and I’m glad you do) doesn’t make a turntable a better sounding reproduction device. And that is before you even consider the convenience of digital.
ME? I sold all my LPs in 1991 and have never looked back. Would I get a turntable again? Maybe. But it certainly wouldn’t be because I was looking for a better quality listening experience. Probably because it looks cool...like the Garrard Zero-100 turntable I owned in the mid 70’s.
Not trying to change your mind at all. But I would recommend you state your preference as an opinion...which is exactly all it can be.
One last opinion. In comparing analog vs digital, cables, power cords, components, AC plugs and the like; in the world of high end equipment, the one that will sound the best to the listener is very often the one he wants to sound best. |
"Confirmation bias" is not a "strawman argument," Elizabeth, it is a psychological reality. When you spend a lot of money on an audio upgrade, you disconnect the old crap and hook up the new stuff. You typically have neither the time, interest, equipment or capability to leave the old crap hooked up so that you can do instantaneous A/B comparisons with the new stuff. Additionally, because audio memory is so extremely perishable, without an instantaneous comparison, a high end upgrade could sound like anything....marginally better or worse but you couldn't tell....couldn't remember.
But know this. If you spend enough money, the new stuff will sound better. Guaranteed...pretty much. Not a bad thing if, in the end, it makes you feel good.
Also know that confirmation
bias
can lead to the experimenter interpreting results incorrectly because of the
tendency to look for information that conforms to their hypothesis, and
overlook information that argues against it. It is a significant threat to a
study's internal validity, and is therefore typically controlled using a
double-blind experimental design.
No REAL audiophile does, nor will he believe the results of, contradictory double-blind experimentation.This is why Joe Nobody hooks up a $2000 power cord to his Oppo disc player and reports that the new playback is now "Jaw Dropping!"
|
