Slashdot Mirror


Vinyl To Signal the End for CDs?

PJ1216 writes to mention that vinyl seems poised to make a comeback in the music industry. Some are even predicting that this comeback coupled with the surge in digital music sales could possibly close the door on CDs. "Portability is no longer any reason to stick with CDs, and neither is audio quality. Although vinyl purists are ripe for parody, they're right about one thing: Records can sound better than CDs. Although CDs have a wider dynamic range, mastering houses are often encouraged to compress the audio on CDs to make it as loud as possible: It's the so-called loudness war. Since the audio on vinyl can't be compressed to such extremes, records generally offer a more nuanced sound. Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary."

18 of 883 comments (clear)

  1. New Analog Format by RailGunner · · Score: 5, Funny

    Forget vinyl - when can we get things recorded in Analog to Water?

    Plus, when you're done listening to it, you can make Ramen noodles with Skwisgaar's solos, or maybe even coffee with Toki's Rhythm Guitar parts...

    DETHKLOK RULES!

    1. Re:New Analog Format by senatorpjt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just as soon as I quit my job so I can watch cartoons until 2am.

    2. Re:New Analog Format by Fett101 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "and yes, I know you can get very expensive record players that use laser's or some such thing instead of a needle"

      They call them CD players I believe.

    3. Re:New Analog Format by Lillesvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And of course, it's a format that's easily damaged, and wears out just by listening to it [and yes, I know you can get very expensive record players that use laser's or some such thing instead of a needle].

      I'm sorry, but there are just so many things wrong with that, that I have to reply.

      Vinyl is not as easily damaged as one would think. I have a pretty big vinyl collection and a reasonably sized CD collection (about 180 of them) and guess which one's I'm having trouble listening to... I can't listen to my Deftones - Adrenaline CD, because it has a few minor scratches that mess up each and every track on the CD rendering it completely and utterly useless - and that CD is only about 10 years old. Now, I've got a vinyl in my collection that's about twice as old (an old Danish children's record) which I've "borrowed" from my dad. It has been handled a lot by myself and my 4 sisters back when we were kids but it plays fine. The jacket's all torn and I know for a fact that it's been treated really, really rough. Sure, there are the occasional pops and maybe a skip or two when it plays, but if I increase the weight of the needle just a little, it plays the record in its entirety without a single skip... Now, try to do that with my Deftones CD... (Though, I'm not really that keen on listening to it any longer.)

      To reiterate:

      • Vinyl (+20 yrs old, handled/dropped a LOT by kids, plenty of visible scratches): Still plays fine.
      • CD (~10 yrs old, played mostly in an NAD CD player, treated nicely, very few visible scratches): Completely useless.

      Re your wearing out issue... If you adjust the weight of the needle right (and no, it's really not that hard) and use a decent one, then you'll be able to play your records for at least as long as your CDs. Remember, CDs deteriorate as well - they don't even have to be played to get all messed up! As long as you treat your LPs reasonably, they'll last for a loooong time - at least, I have some records that are way older than myself (26 yrs) and they play just fine. Besides, CDs can't be treated all that bad either, without rendering them unplayable...

      As for the laser-thingy. I can't say much, as I have never actually seen (or heard) one, but from what I've heard people say about it, the sound isn't all that good and definitely not worth it. But as I said, I have no experience with it myself. Try googling it if your interested, that's where I found some reviews back when I was checking it out.

      --
      "Live free or don't."
    4. Re:New Analog Format by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Funny

      Only a fool keeps his data, music or otherwise, on a plastic disk of any sort. Your data belongs on a RAID. That NEVER degrades EVER, and with offsite backups, it will survive even the destruction of your house.

      Vinyl and CDs are for suckers.

      P.S. Anecdotes are worthless. You fail at science.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    5. Re:New Analog Format by prionic6 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry mwvdlee, you are wrong. Acording to Nyquist, EVERY signal that has a limited bandwidth (don't know if that's the correct english term), that means it contains no frequencies above a certain limit frequency, can be totally reconstructed out of a sampled signal with double that limit frequency as sampling rate. This is a perfect reconstruction if you leave noise floor out of the equation. With 24 bit or even 16 bit per sample the noise floor is practically unhearable and much better than on a vinyl record.

      Please, read up a bit about digital signals and the Nyquist theorem, it is counter-intuitive, but it works. There are no "edges" in a reconstructed (played) digital signal!

  2. not this again... by onemorehour · · Score: 5, Informative

    Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary.

    This statement is true, but completely irrelevant. The fact that a recording medium is analog does not mean that it is better at accurately recording and reproducing a sound than a digital medium. Magnetic tapes are also analog recordings. Putting a pencil on a string, hanging it next to a speaker, and having it draw a line on a moving sheet of paper is also an analog recording.

    It's true that a digital recording can never contain the amount of data in a vinyl groove, but who is saying that all the data in a vinyl groove is more of an accurate representation of all the data extant in the original sound wave than a digitally sampled recording?

    Although CDs have a wider dynamic range, mastering houses are often encouraged to compress the audio on CDs to make it as loud as possible: It's the so-called loudness war. Since the audio on vinyl can't be compressed to such extremes, records generally offer a more nuanced sound.

    This is similarly irrelevant. Compression is a way of altering a sound wave, and has nothing to do with the final recording medium. Overcompression is a problem, but this is not an argument for vinyl over CD--it's just a comment on postprocessing techniques.

    1. Re:not this again... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually the statement about Nyquist's theorem is poppycock. This a mathematical fact, not some weird subjective result open to interpretation. Saying that Nyquist's theorem is wrong is equivalent to stating that the value of pi is really 6.

      As you said, the comment about compression is nonsense. Compression is the removal of dynamic range, and is actually REQUIRED for vinyl to get the low volume sounds out of the vinyl surface noise to make them audible.

      The truth of the matter is that vinyl records are crap compared to CD's in every measurable way - distortion, dynamic range, frequency response, signal to noise ratio, you name it. Are they perfect? No, that does not exist in technology. The Redbook standard is a tad short of the maximum theoretical dynamic range and frequency response the human ear is capable of. The conversion of digital data back to analog is tricky to get right. But it is superior to vinyl.

      But some people do like vinyl better. Audio tastes are funny. People become habituated to certain types of distortion and other artifacts in the sound. To them is sounds better. But by any measurable means it looks like garbage compared to CD.

    2. Re:not this again... by MenTaLguY · · Score: 5, Informative

      They're talking about dynamic range compression, which is different to data compression. In simple terms, dynamic range compression basically means amplifying the quieter parts of a song so they are closer in volume to the loudest parts. The music industry has taken it to ridiculous extremes in the past couple decades.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    3. Re:not this again... by DFDumont · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Although a digital representation cannot completely represent an analogue waveform, it is true that it can:
      - produce an approximation that differs from the original by less than can be detected by the human ear, which does have its limits
      - produce an approximation that is BETTER than a recording made in a physical medium.

      The issue with recording on a physical medium - irrespective of type or method, is that the stylus (whatever it may be) has mass. As such it is subject to Newton's first law and will resist changes to its momentum. This will have the audio effect of diminishing the frequency response in proportion to the frequency. This attenuation of the high end of the audio spectrum is what gives vinyl its 'richer' sound - NOT that it is more faithfully approximating the original sound wave.

      Remember EVERYTHING is an approximation - including the pressure wave in the air that was the original transcription from the instrument.

    4. Re:not this again... by megaditto · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or crap cables (i.e. below $5,000).

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    5. Re:not this again... by purplenoise · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Given the speakers, headphones, and rooms that most people have, any argument about media quality is utterly pointless.

      This is simply a media stunt by the recording industry's marketing departments to try and popularize a physical object that people must pay for. Vinyl has all the sex appeal to become that object.

      Vinyl needs to be compressed even more so than CD's, as heavy bass can be enough to make the needle pop right out of the groove.

      However, all the arguments about increased sound quality, as you point out, are absurd.

      I am a mastering engineer, software engineer and have worked on audio software. And in all of my experience there are only a couple of things left to improve upon with current digital audio technology, but for a very small amount of return.

      When the music is mixed digitally using certain "professional tools" (no pun intended) it is done in fixed point. A few companies have realized that using double precision floating point *does* sound better. And the difference is measurable. Some sound engineers believe it's also very audible.

      In short, sampling a signal, scaling it, summing it and then truncating (or dithering) it, does more than shifting it's level and burying the lower end under the quantization threshold. No technical name exists for this type of distortion, but it is a self correlated noise upon the signal, or cross correlated with the other signals being mixed upon it. What it amounts to is to putting the signal thru a transfer function consisting of a jagged diagonal line (instead of a perfect diagonal line, whose slope matches the gain applied) or jagged grid that shifts up and down with the value of the other streams being mixed. This is analogous to rendering a diagonal line on a computer. The higher the resolution (number of bits) the better. But sadly, at the recording and mixing stage, mixing a large number of tracks with say 24 bits of fixed point resolution is ridiculously bad, even if the final master will be dithered and truncated at 16 bits, because this distorting process will occur repeatedly, for each gainstage, for each track summed. One solution to this is to apply gain and sum at double precision floating point. Yet another, less popular solution, is to actually reproduce each track back into the analog world using high quality DACS and sum in the analog domain. Both sound nearly as good, and certainly better than summing at 24 bits fixed point.

      Second, there are certain IIR filters that can't be implemented at just 2x the bandwith. Because of this, the choices are: Upsample and downsample just for that filter (which is computationally expensive and if done at all, seldom done correctly) or just run the entire audio stream at 4 or 8x the bandwith.

      What is done today by most studios is run the entire project at 88.2 or 96 kHz sampling frequency. This is great, but requires a very high quality downsampler at the end of the chain to convey the final result.

      One could argue that vinyl masters can be cut from a DAC running at 96 kHz and thus have an increased frequency resolution. But that improvement pales in the light of the background hiss level, additional bass compression required for vinyl, preamp distortion, de-emphasis equalizer tolerances, motor speed stability deviations, etc.

      I wonder if we just had a tiny speaker on top of a CD player reproducing the very high frequencies that come from the "needle" whether it would finally pass for vinyl.

      I bet that much of what is perceived as sounding better for vinyl is the fact that people can hear the sound of the mechanics (the needle itself) as well as the speakers. I remember as a child, that the records sounded a lot better when the turntable lid was open.


      -arr

  3. In a Related Story... by jcicora · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...8 tracks are due to make a comeback in 5 years

  4. Not until by Serhei · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not until laptops come with a vinyl drive.

  5. Let me get this straight: by foxtrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Vinyl is better than CDs because the lack of technology and features means that the people who make 'em can't fuck 'em up as much?

    And they say technology can't solve social problems. Or, in this case, lack of technology...

    -F

  6. And Darwin be dammed as well. by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Nyquist's theorem to the contrary."
    Damm right my ears are so good that I can toss out the cornerstone of DSP!

    Vinyl doesn't have an infinite resolution anymore than a photograph does. You can not keep blowing up a photograph even though it is an analog recording medium. Vinyl does have a finite resolution just like digital methods.
    And guess what? They will still use digital equipment in the studios because there is no quality loss when making copies! They will just move the DAC stage from your receiver to the cutting head for the record.
    Nope your as wrong as any creationist and showing just as deep an understanding of science.

    Yes the loudness wars are making CDs crap but that has nothing to do with digital vs analog.

    I hate to sound like a member of the tin hat bunch but I have to wonder if this isn't a brilliant plan by the music companies to sell you the same music yet again! It is a lot harder to rip a record and put it on your ipod than a CD. So they sell you the "Better sounding" record for your home stereo and then the digital download full of DRM for your music player.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  7. New Orthophonic by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hum how exactly does vynil prevent range compression ? (honest question here)

    For one thing, vinyl has always had a loudness standard: the bigger you make the grooves, the fewer can fit on the record. So LPs were most often mastered at levels appropriate for a 24 minute side. (Extended singles for club play, which have fewer songs on them, are often mastered louder.) Compact Disc Digital Audio, on the other hand, never had a concrete definition of the playback volume.

    CD is more portable than vinyl and is often listened to in a moving environment. The loudness race started when portable audio players such as Sony Discman and car units first came out. Some used a cheap op-amp to drive cheap headphones; others were car units that played over the radio. Record producers realized that end users could barely hear Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms over environmental noise, and they pushed mastering engineers to push the levels hotter.

    Also, vinyl equalizes the bass down before recording and equalizes it back up in the player's preamp, based on a standardized New Orthophonic preemphasis curve. The limiter algorithms to overamplify an audio signal while fitting it into [-1..1] in the flat-equalized time domain of CD are not optimal for a time domain equalized in New Orthophonic. It's the producer's job to approve a master, and hearing these suboptimal results on vinyl might encourage an ambitious producer to back off on the demands to the mastering engineer.

  8. loudness standard by Col.+Bloodnok · · Score: 5, Funny

    As we know from the excellent Spinal Tap documentary - loudness on analogue signals can be pushed to 11 (possibly further). We sometimes forget that CDs being digital can not pass 1.

    And often overlooked fact.