Why vinyl?


Here are couple of short articles to read before responding.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/10/listeningpost_1029

http://www.residentadvisor.net/feature-read.aspx?id=755

Vinylheads will jump on this, but hopefully some digital aficionados will also chime in.
ojgalli

Showing 2 responses by jwglista

From the second article:

"As for the actual sound quality, the argument is debatable at best, and completely moot at worst. Only the most discerning audiophile can spot the difference on any kind of respectable sound system"

Obviously this guy is not an audiophile, therefore he is unqualified to comment as such. He speaks on a purely superficial, business oriented level, without concern to sound quality. Next time he needs to put down his pen (oops..I mean laptop...cause who uses a pen to write an article anymore? too "inconvenient") and breathe before writing an article out of spite after being scolded by vinyl head DJ's about his decision to switch to digital.

"The medium is the message, and when it comes to being a DJ, the message is digital. Resist if you will, but the future is clear – music technology is going to continue to evolve with or without you."

The *medium* is the message? Wow this guy is really lost. I can see why he would prefer digital over vinyl as a medium for DJ's simply due to convenience, but he seems to think that DJs are the only crowd keeping vinyl alive. I find that hard to believe. He takes a shot at audiophiles "holding on" to records, when the whole basis of the article is convenient transportation of his media as a DJ. An unbalanced argument that holds no merit, as far as I'm concerned.
"I believe that digital is just now catching up with analog, but, based on what I hear, it's the gap has disappeared. Unfortunately, you can't buy much at the highest possible resolutions."

I totally agree with this statement. To me, standard redbook audio is inherently flawed due to its low resolution. When the redbook standard was invented, the ability to fit 650 MB/60-70 minutes of audio on a small plastic disc was amazing, considering hard drives at the time could store about 10 megabytes. They most likely chose 16 bit 44.1 kHz because it allowed a full 60-70 minutes of audio on this 650 megabyte disc, and also because they found that that sampling rate still captured the frequency range of normal human hearing. If they would have had the technology to put more than 650 megabytes onto a disc at that time, they most likely would have chosen a much higher sampling rate.