Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

We are the Borg.
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 12680
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 1352 times
Been thanked: 1887 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby Witness » Tue May 24, 2016 4:20 am

Seems to be the right thread ( :? ):
This is money wrote:How Adele helped vinyl turn the tables: Sales of vinyl records up 500% in just three years

Sales of vinyl records have soared by a staggering 500 per cent in just three years as a return to buying physical music captured the imagination of the public.

Support from music chain HMV and online music marketplace Discogs bolstered sales of vinyl records, which reached 2.1million copies last year.

Sales of record players have also soared with HMV reporting that it sold one every minute over the Christmas sales period.

Just three years ago even music industry insiders were dismissing the vinyl revolution.

The surprise growth has come from sales of new releases by mainstream artists coupled with reissues of old favourites.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3391861/How-Adele-helped-vinyl-turn-tables-Sales-vinyl-records-500-just-three-years.html
So the Cool Kids® will soon snigger at our FLACs & CDs? (And know what an LP is…)

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 19410
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1145 times
Been thanked: 897 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby Anaxagoras » Tue May 24, 2016 4:52 am

There is something cool about vinyl records that seems to be lost in having all your music on iTunes or whatever. Cooler than CDs too.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
asthmatic camel
Posts: 17736
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:53 pm
Title: Forum commie nun.
Location: Stirring the porridge with my spurtle.
Has thanked: 356 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby asthmatic camel » Tue May 24, 2016 9:14 am

They may be cooler but they sound like crap next to CDs. That's why all us oldsters got rid of them all those years ago.
Shit happens. The older you get, the more often shit happens. So you have to try not to give a shit even when you do. Because, if you give too many shits, you've created your own shit creek and there's no way out other than swimming through the shit. Oh, and fuck.

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19051
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Hiding under ed's bed
Has thanked: 491 times
Been thanked: 489 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby Rob Lister » Tue May 24, 2016 9:42 am

Purely a fad. You can never go back.

Besides, buying albums--digital, cd or vinyl--is for chumps.

A 500% increase sounds like a lot but that puts them at 2.5 million copies annually.

Adele--the artist referenced in the article--sold that many non-vinyl albums in one day.

Tunes has sold 2.5 billion songs thus far.

I wouldn't bet my IRA on Vinyl.

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 66413
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 870 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Tue May 24, 2016 12:44 pm

More than just a fad.

Vinyl is a niche, not unlike (with overlapping fandom) tube amps.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
sparks
Posts: 12254
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 387 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby sparks » Tue May 24, 2016 8:46 pm

Some people like the added warmth of all those even-ordered harmonics.

'Course, technically that's called distortion.
Nice things? Hell no!

Board Crumbmuffin.

User avatar
Ben Trovado
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:08 pm
Title: Ex Avenger
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby Ben Trovado » Tue May 24, 2016 9:11 pm

I had this argument with a friend a looong time ago. He was seriously into vinyl and criticized me for going to CDs early (MP3s were just a glint in the milkman's eye back then).

His system was better and had richer sound, and it was worth the special cloths and care, etc.

I: "So, how much did your system run?"

He: "$4,500"

I: "My CD player and speakers ran me $350 - most of that was the speakers . . . 9 out of 10 people will not be able to tell the difference between mine and yours. Including me."

He: " . . ."

He: " . . ."

He: "Die in a fire."

Me: (exudes smugness)

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 64624
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 2801 times
Been thanked: 1764 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby Doctor X » Tue May 24, 2016 9:16 pm

I recall vinyl fans screaming about how "CDs sound metalic!" Sure.

There is band that allows fans to trade bootleg recordings of concerts and practice sessions--"what? You want this crap?"--and much of the "stuff" was produced on vinyl.

Much of the work fans do is correct the speed, remove the popping, hissing, balancing, et cetera on this wonderful vinyl. Cassettes? There is, of course, "tape hiss," speed, and filling in "cassette flips!"

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.

Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! ImageStanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!! Image

User avatar
sparks
Posts: 12254
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 387 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby sparks » Tue May 24, 2016 11:13 pm

"Sounds harsh and cold" said one person to me when having this discussion regarding CDs vs Vinyl.

Why yes, it does. It's what would have been there all along without the artifacts the vinyl system adds to the original content.



Ears, like everything else, must be trained.
Nice things? Hell no!

Board Crumbmuffin.

User avatar
Witness
Posts: 12680
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 1352 times
Been thanked: 1887 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby Witness » Wed May 25, 2016 4:09 am

sparks wrote:Ears, like everything else, must be trained.

Quite!

But beyond, or better before, reproduction quality comes the quality of the take. Progress has been made there too (and unmade, with the "war for loudness"). If you listen to LPs from the 60ies-70ies, there can be enormous differences. Classical (even chamber music) often sounded dull and muddled, contrary to jazz (even big bands), blues and some pop/folk which was more often crisp and somehow transparent.
I'd ascribe that to the interests, or lack of interests, of the sound technicians setting up the gear…

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 64624
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 2801 times
Been thanked: 1764 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby Doctor X » Wed May 25, 2016 6:44 am

You know who ELSE would have preferred CDs?

HITLER!!!11!!

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.

Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! ImageStanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!! Image

User avatar
sparks
Posts: 12254
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 387 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby sparks » Wed May 25, 2016 5:31 pm

Witness wrote:
sparks wrote:Ears, like everything else, must be trained.

Quite!

But beyond, or better before, reproduction quality comes the quality of the take. Progress has been made there too (and unmade, with the "war for loudness"). If you listen to LPs from the 60ies-70ies, there can be enormous differences. Classical (even chamber music) often sounded dull and muddled, contrary to jazz (even big bands), blues and some pop/folk which was more often crisp and somehow transparent.
I'd ascribe that to the interests, or lack of interests, of the sound technicians setting up the gear…


Perhaps a question of production budget...

Not everyone could afford a Neumann U-47.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neumann_U47

Arguably the finest mic ever made. Just don't let the kids play with it! :)
Nice things? Hell no!

Board Crumbmuffin.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 31498
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1290 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby Grammatron » Wed May 25, 2016 6:41 pm

Witness wrote:
sparks wrote:Ears, like everything else, must be trained.

Quite!

But beyond, or better before, reproduction quality comes the quality of the take. Progress has been made there too (and unmade, with the "war for loudness"). If you listen to LPs from the 60ies-70ies, there can be enormous differences. Classical (even chamber music) often sounded dull and muddled, contrary to jazz (even big bands), blues and some pop/folk which was more often crisp and somehow transparent.
I'd ascribe that to the interests, or lack of interests, of the sound technicians setting up the gear…


There's also the issue of remastering altering the total sound volume of the production, as well as the sound volume of each individual instruments and vocals. One can argue the end result, while better quality, is not quite the original.
pillory wrote:jokes aren't funny....seriously thinking......

seriously thinking might be funny....but it's not joke

User avatar
Witness
Posts: 12680
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 1352 times
Been thanked: 1887 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby Witness » Thu May 26, 2016 12:33 am

Image

Abbey Road. :)

User avatar
sparks
Posts: 12254
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 387 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby sparks » Thu May 26, 2016 1:26 am

How quaint.
Nice things? Hell no!

Board Crumbmuffin.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 31498
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1290 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby Grammatron » Thu May 26, 2016 1:56 am

Maybe the remastered version has less cowbell! Is that the world you want to live in?!
pillory wrote:jokes aren't funny....seriously thinking......

seriously thinking might be funny....but it's not joke

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 64624
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 2801 times
Been thanked: 1764 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby Doctor X » Thu May 26, 2016 4:46 am

Trump promises more cowbell!

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.

Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! ImageStanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!! Image

User avatar
ed
Posts: 30998
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamps
Has thanked: 361 times
Been thanked: 599 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby ed » Thu May 26, 2016 11:16 am

sparks wrote:
gnome wrote:vinyl > mp3?

Does not depend on the bitrate?


I maintain good vinyl is better than the best mp3, but at the higher mp3 bitrates, I could be wrong. Point is, mp3 was originally invented to save disc space. Disc space is now shamelessly cheap so why bother?


When are you making the comparison?

After 1 play?
500?
10,000?

Supercilious technoid wanker. Yes, you. :x :x
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19051
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Hiding under ed's bed
Has thanked: 491 times
Been thanked: 489 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby Rob Lister » Thu May 26, 2016 12:01 pm

ed wrote:
sparks wrote:
gnome wrote:vinyl > mp3?

Does not depend on the bitrate?


I maintain good vinyl is better than the best mp3, but at the higher mp3 bitrates, I could be wrong. Point is, mp3 was originally invented to save disc space. Disc space is now shamelessly cheap so why bother?


When are you making the comparison?

After 1 play?
500?
10,000?

Supercilious technoid wanker. Yes, you. :x :x


A powerpoint presentation (in pdf) worthy of the click. Comprehensive double blind test on trained ears.

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/t ... ard.88280/

At bitrates above 256, even the best trained ears cannot tell the difference.
Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
sparks
Posts: 12254
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 387 times

Re: Is Neil Young right about sound quality?

Postby sparks » Thu May 26, 2016 10:27 pm

ed wrote:
sparks wrote:
gnome wrote:vinyl > mp3?

Does not depend on the bitrate?


I maintain good vinyl is better than the best mp3, but at the higher mp3 bitrates, I could be wrong. Point is, mp3 was originally invented to save disc space. Disc space is now shamelessly cheap so why bother?


When are you making the comparison?

After 1 play?
500?
10,000?

Supercilious technoid wanker. Yes, you. :x :x


Thanks ed. Coming from you, that means so much! :) BTW-If vinyl has been treated with respect and is played on good gear with a new stylus, it doesn't much matter how many plays it has had...within reason. Bigger difference comes from how it was cut and pressed and the quality of the vinyl compound itself. They are not created equally. There used to be some stuff out there called 'Quiex II' which always made for a superior (less noisy) playback experience.
Nice things? Hell no!

Board Crumbmuffin.


Return to “Science, Mathematics & Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 0 guests