Reply 20 of 30, by obobskivich
- Rank
- l33t
wrote:Granted, the original digital source is typically studio-quality sound recordings at frequency rates far higher than the 44,100 KHz produced by CDs. 😉
Which generally cannot be captured or reproduced, regardless of format (there are very real limits to usable equipment frequency response, which are much narrower than what most high-fidelity formats (be it vinyl LP, CD, SACD, etc) can theoretically achieve; there's also generally a lot of filtering that goes on in recording and mastering). 😊 Here's an FFT analysis of vinyl vs CD for theoretical high-end frequency response if you're interested: http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html
Now keep in mind the extremely low amplitude of the very HF signals - it's essentially extraneous data that you will never hear (for a few reasons: the limits of human hearing, acoustic masking, and the limits of equipment). It's also not taking into account what that data actually contains - it may just be extraneous ultrasonic harmonics/noise. The link above notes this below, that despite the theoretical upper-end frequency response limits of vinyl, when the record is actually cut there is a lowpass filter employed (I've variably heard this stated as between 15kHz and 50kHz over the years) to prevent overheating the cutting head. It's certainly safe to say that vinyl can reproduce similar frequency response to CD ("20-20"), but going beyond that is very unlikely.
AFAIK, most modern albums released on vinyl are from the same masters as CD, simply for cost reasons. If the album is mastered differently on one format or another, that will likely produce the most significant differences in sound, and assuming you have playback hardware for whatever formats, go for whatever has the best master. 😎
Yes, vinyl *is* making a comeback, and I think the aesthetic/experiential reasons are a big part of that. It's a neat format, and there are a lot of really cool older albums which either don't exist on CD, were very cheaply reproduced on CD, or otherwise aren't as "fun" on CD (this last argument is basically the same reason we like playing retro games on retro PCs). Personally I'm not opposed to it either - I've got a pair of nifty automatic turntables (one is actually an auto-tracker), and a handful of records. I don't listen to them often, but it's still fun to get them out and play from time to time. I prefer digital audio for convenience and consistency though (that, and I can have thousands of songs on-tap on my PC without having to constantly change discs).
On cleaning LPs: I've never heard of taking them in the bath with you, but I don't see why it wouldn't work as long as you aren't using any chemicals that are dangerous to the physical record, and don't scrub them overly aggressively (it risks scratching them). I've heard of covering them in wood glue to take up dust and debris in the past, and I grew up using fresh lint rollers or record brushes to clean mine. In more recent years, I've also had good luck with the same gas dusters used to clean out PCs. Here's an article on the wood-glue thing: http://www.cratekings.com/clean-records-with- … vinyl-facelift/ I've personally always wanted to try it, but I've never wanted to risk a record or a table in the attempt (and something to point out, especially if you have a belt drive table: using the turntable to spin the record and then applying force/weight to the record can be very hard on the table's motor).
wrote:It's not that vinyl audio is getting better, but that CD audio is getting worse:
This affects LPs as well as other formats. It unfortunately isn't just a CD thing. The Wikipedia article explains this to an extent. Absolutely, digital audio has allowed this to go on to ridiculous levels, but it's an unfortunate "thing" that pretty much invaded all levels of the music production process some time ago. There are technical limits to how "loud" you can cut an LP, which probably limits some of this with modern pressings, but the actual recording is still likely to be very compressed in mastering.