Slashdot Mirror


Vinyl Record Production Gets a Much-Needed Tech Upgrade (engadget.com)

Ever wondered why you sometimes have to wait months after an album's launch to get the music on vinyl? It's not necessarily because the label hates vinyl -- in many cases, it's because the decades-old manufacturing process can't keep up with the format's resurgence. From a report on Engadget: Relief may be in sight for turntable fans, though. Viryl Technologies is producing a pressing machine system, WarmTone, that should drag vinyl production into the modern era. Much of WarmTone's improvement rests in its use of modern engineering. It's more reliable when producing the "pucks" that become records, makes it easier to switch out stampers (the negatives that press records) and sports a trimming/stacking system that can better handle large-scale production. Also, there's a raft of sensors -- the machine checks everything from pressure to temperature to timing, so companies will immediately know if something goes wrong.

303 comments

  1. Have they added DRM yet? by NotInHere · · Score: 1

    Usually, such formats all include DRM. How do they make money without DRM??? If you believe the MPAA, they'd be bankrupt by now!

    1. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Informative

      No need of DRM. People who buy vinyl want to listen "vinyl" (and vinyls are much harder to duplicate, compared to a CD or a file).

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Informative

      records are not lossless and every copy is unique and imperfect. not only that, but the act of PLAYING it destroys and degrades the medium.

      I grew up with lp's and I'm happy to say that the last one I played was well over 20 yrs ago.

      today's dacs are so good and the a/d's in studios are so good, there is zero reason for using lp's at home.

      the ONLY valid reason is that the mix is intentionally different, which makes zero sense. there is more dyn range in cd and 'files' than any LP could produce. and yet, they put better mixes on records for pure marketing reasons.

      dacs can do 24/192k and even DSD. records are about 1/10 of that or even less.

      sigh ;(

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Digital" rights management, idiot.

    4. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This! I don't want vinyl, what I want is a digital download of the master used to produce the vinyl. The one that doesn't have to compete in the loudness wars and isn't compressed all to hell.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by PPH · · Score: 1

      They did come up with a method for plugging the analog hole in vinyl media decades ago.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is more dynamic range on a CD in theory, however with sound compression (i.e. "loudness wars", not "lossy audio compression as in MP3 or AAC") we end up with CDs and audio files from music stores that sound like crap.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    7. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 2

      Well, even the best DAC available only can create a approximation from the original analog sound signal, while vinyl is an analog recording by nature.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    8. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by bickerdyke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      while vinyl is an analog recording by nature.

      Which doesn't say anything about any similarity with the original signal.

      --
      bickerdyke
    9. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be ideal. If this was available I wouldn't be nearly as excited about vinyl as I am. But with the current state of affairs even with all of its drawbacks I feel vinyl is superior to CD. In addition to the sound being better, there's nothing quite like sitting down with the lyrics and playing an LP. It's hard to duplicate that experience in digital. Still, a PDF with the lyrics and a studio quality digital download would be pretty close I'd imagine.

    10. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to you but they don't go from the masters to vinyl. They send the mix to be pressed. That's the way it's worked since multi-channel stereo became the norm.

      AFAIK, you can't get the unmixed masters even if you wanted to.

    11. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. A lot of the "vinyl sounds better" effect is because you *can't* master stuff as consistently loudly on vinyl due to the physical limitations inherent in the medium. Those vinyl masters aren't pressed to CD because of the loudness wars bullshit where everything has to be at 11 all the time when it might be played in public. It's doing the music a disservice. Vinyl is not a great format due to all the reasons mentioned here and in parent posts, while CD is *very* good by comparison and is capable of storing better quality than we're capable of hearing (and if you can hear a difference between a well-recorded audio CD and any identical but higher res file in a blind listening test, you'd best get along to your nearest hospital to leave your body to medical research because you are a mutant).
      DSD/MQA/etc solely exist to sell you more expensive equipment, much like bi-amping solely exists to sell you more speaker cable than you need. If it doesn't sound better in a properly controlled blind listening test then it is snake oil, pure and simple.

    12. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Further, is there really _no_ digital going on between recording and pressing in new works? I'd be pretty surprised if they are recording direct to vinyl master these days, or recording to analog tape, cutting the tape, and creating the vinyl master from it.

    13. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Whatever. I thought that was what they called the master.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    14. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Given the average pop singer of today can't sing on key and must be auto-tuned, I'm sure they are not doing direct to disk. I do have a couple of direct to disk albums from the 80's. They sound good, but I'll still take a well done CD/SACD/blu-audio disk any day. Something I notice about the direct's is the little booboos like somebody dropping a pen or page turning. Adds a real sense of being there.

    15. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'aproximation' however are orders of magnitude better than the aproximation a vinyl record will produce.

      However digital is not an aproximation, what comes out of a DAC is not the PCM data that you see when you look at the individual sample bytes in a audio editor that don't know what a sin sinc is.

    16. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, even the best DAC available only can create a approximation from the original analog sound signal, while vinyl is an analog recording by nature.

      Well, even the best vinyl pressing available only can create an approximation from the original analog sound signal., while digital can be more easily adjusted to accommodate the mismatch.

    17. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by gnick · · Score: 1

      Well, even the best DAC available only can create a approximation from the original analog sound signal, while vinyl is an analog recording by nature.

      Even with the best vinyl pressing technology, records can only create an approximation of the original analog sound signal. Just because something isn't being digitized doesn't somehow make it perfect. Just because a copy is "analog" doesn't necessarily make it a more accurate representation of the original than a digital "approximation."

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    18. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by pla · · Score: 1

      He's not talking about the raw individual instrument/mic tracks, he's talking about the final digital mix that gets used to produce the record, which is an entirely different (and I would have to agree better) mix than goes to CD/MP3 and radio.

      I have no love for vinyl, but its hard to argue that not every second of a song (aside from the intro and outro) should be equally loud as every other second.

    19. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Vinly is pressed from a negative produced from a "gold master". It is most certainly a master. It's not a "studio master", which is probably what you're thinking of. And even studio masters aren't the source recordings. Those are usually just called "originals" or "takes" or "cuts".

      The point the GP was trying to make was that vinyl gold masters are created using "RIAA compression", which is a standard set of analog compression processes applied post-mixing to make the mix sound good on vinyl. CD's don't need this because they fully represent the entire 20-20k human hearing range with room to spare. The GP is mistaken in his belief that RIAA compression will make music sound better on non-vinyl media. It usually just sounds muffled and hissy due to the way it mutes harmonics and plays tricks with the noise floor.

      That's why CD's use a different master: a "glass master" that can be used in old-school foil-flash CD pressing machines. This comes from the same studio master as the vinyl one does, but has different compression applied to it. This is where they play the "loudness" game that grumpy oldsters love to complain about. There are valid reasons to push everything into the top 10%, but there's no convincing some people. Usually those people aren't worth pleasing.

    20. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      If you put any digital conversion between recording the sound and printing the LP then it will not make sense to create the LP. I suppose the manufacturer of the LPs took that into account, obviously.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    21. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Well, even the best DAC available only can create a approximation from the original analog sound signal, while vinyl is an analog recording by nature.

      That doesn't make any sense for a couple of reasons.

      1. Virtually all music is mastered digitally so its already passed through various DACs any way. A vinyl record will be a reproduction of a digital master so any supposed benefits of being analogue are irrelevant.
      2. Just because something is analogue doesn't mean it better either. A record master may be filtered and have a reduced dynamic range so the needle doesn't bounce around or skip. Records also wear out, particularly high frequency and attract dust and scratches so the sound degrades with each play. Then of course you have all the electro-mechanical distortion introduced by the equipment itself.

      So no, vinyl isn't any better than digital. I expect what attracts most aficionados of the format has more to do with the ritual of the format and almost nothing to do with the sound quality. The sound quality isn't better.

    22. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The manufacturer of the LP will make the LP any way they can if they can make a profit doing it.

    23. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 0

      True, but you do not get it? I'm going to make it really clear: I'm NOT, I repeat, I not claiming that the LP's sound is "perfect". What I'm saying (and that seems to have caused nerve reactions by the answers I've read) is that the best way to store an analog sound still is an analog recording medium. The digital medium is good but it is still a coding of an analog signal where you have no way to avoid loss of information. The LP recording may even distort the original sound a bit (if it distorts too much then your recording equipment is really bad and should be discarded), but it does not lose information doing that.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    24. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by jcr · · Score: 2

      that the best way to store an analog sound still is an analog recording medium

      This is not true, and it never was. Every analog medium out there has a greater level of THD than CDs do, even the first time you play back a tape or vinyl disc. Every time you play it after that, vinyl accumulates physical damage, while tape emulsion wears and imprints on adjacent loops of the tape.
      Not to mention, tape stretches, disks warp, drives vary in speed, etc, etc.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    25. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      As I already said for an AC, recording an LP only makes sense if your entire mix chain is analog. I assume manufacturers are taking this into consideration of course.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    26. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define "better". I have a decent turntable (Sony HS-PX500) AND a good DAC (Parasound ZDAC) and I STILL prefer some albums on vinyl. Why? Because the mastering on MANY albums is BETTER than the mastering they use on CDs! The only way you know is to listen.

    27. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Well, even the best DAC available only can create a approximation from the original analog sound signal, while vinyl is an analog recording by nature.

      The recording on vinyl is also only an approximation of the original signal. It's been processed throught the complex RIAA equalization filter to get a reasonable amount of music to fit on the LP. Your stereo's phono preamp has to apply an approximate inverse of that filter to try to reconstruct the original signal.

      Anyone who knows about electrical engineering principles can tell you that doing analog signal processing like that in the real world will have undesirable side effects.

      When you also consider that the random analog noise on an LP has more magnitude than the digital approximation errors on a CD, the CD is clearly superior (assuming that the CD mix wasn't intentionally ruined due to the loudness war).

    28. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 0

      Did you stop to think about the bullshit you wrote? By chance did I mention anything about obvious things like media wear? Read again what I wrote, I am not comparing media durability here.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    29. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Right. It doesn't make sense to create an LP, except that they can be sold for more profit.

    30. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 0

      As I had to remind everyone else, if you put any digital processing in the process then it will not make sense to record an LP. To make sense all the recording process from the sound capture to the printing of the LP needs to be analog.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    31. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1
      You're the one that wrote bullshit.

      The digital medium is good but it is still a coding of an analog signal where you have no way to avoid loss of information

      In an analog medium you have no way to avoid loss of information either. And that loss is even bigger, even on brand new media.

    32. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      If you make the entire mix chain analog, you'll only introduce more errors along the way. At least with digital, you can mix the data without further loss of quality.

    33. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      LMOL yeah ok Potsy, please tell us how analog is not lossless and digital is.....

    34. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit Potsy. How the fuck do you lose information in an analog medium!

    35. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

      Look up digital and analog, then get back to us....

    36. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      When writing to it, when reading to it, when transfering an analog signal from any source to and sink using non supraconducting wire.

      In other words: A hypothetical, perfect anlog medium, with a hypothetical, perfect analog signal chain, you wouldn't loose information.

      Any piece of analog equipment will loose more signal than the cheapest DAC.

      --
      bickerdyke
    37. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid, I had two tape recorders. One day I was bored and curious, so I recorded a song from one tape recorder to the other, I then recorded that copy back on the first tape. I repeated the process 10-20 times, at which point the recording sounded like total crap. It was a very educational process. I assume you've never tried something like that yourself ? You really should.

    38. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Ok. I looked it up. Digital is more accurate than analog.

    39. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about a digital process. RIAA equalization is done purely with analog filters, and has been in use since long before digital recording was even possible.

    40. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Ask yourself. If an analog LP can hold 20 minutes of music played at 33 1/3 RPM without losing *any* information, why don't we simply reduce the speed to 10 RPM, and put an hour of music on each side ?

    41. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by tungstencoil · · Score: 1

      I'll disagree with you ... mildly... about the CD versus higher resolution. It's about harmonics introduced by higher frequencies impacting the lower (and the reproduction of said harmonics during D/A conversion upon playback), and anti-aliasing of higher frequencies unable to be captured correctly (a la Nyquist). Does it mean higher frequency is better? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. A lot depends upon not only exactly what is being recorded, but the equipment and conditions for both recording and playback.

      I'll agree it's mostly hype for little or no benefit, but it isn't entirely fiction.

      There's a pretty good, albeit partial, explanation here: https://www.sweetwater.com/ins...

    42. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no. Within the bandpass range and above the system noise floor, the signal coming out of the DAC is identical to what went into the mastering ADC (assuming jitter-free clock, flat frequency response, etc.) There are no "quantitzation stairsteps" on the output, it is smooth & continuous.

    43. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by ai4px · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pop Singer? What is the sorcery you speak of? I thought they were /entertainers/. First and foremost, you have to been good looking, we can fix your voice. And if you aren't selling any songs, don't despair, "accidentally" release a sex tape.

      You know the number one reason Vinyl sounds better that digital? Because the music was better when they were making vinyl.

    44. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by sodul · · Score: 1

      whoosh?

    45. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Bullshit Potsy. How the fuck do you lose information in an analog medium!

      Well, for vinyl records, you have a physical limitation on the ability of the stylus to follow the track, you're mixing both L and R into one physical track, and you have to apply an equalization step to deal with the response of the stylus and track width.

      There is a natural limit to the level of bass in an LP based on the resonances of the system, as well. I had one pressing of "Hot Rod Lincoln" that has a very high bass level in the opening, and you could hear the bounce of the stylus trying to follow it.

      For digital, when you sample above the Nyquist frequency, you lose only the frequencies above half the sampling frequency. So, with a 44.1kHz sample rate you lose above 22.05kHz, which most people cannot hear anyway. But you don't have the physical limit of the vinyl, and your dynamic range is limited only by the number of bits you digitize with. If you want better than 20kHz, go to SACD.

    46. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      No, unmixed is just the tracks. Mastering necessitates full mixdown and EQ/normalization.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    47. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Khyber · · Score: 0

      I can tell you've never heard of this thing called sheet music, which is an analog format of storing musical information so that one may replicate it perfectly.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    48. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I can tell you've never touched a piece of sheet music in your life. They tell you, in analog format, how to perfectly recreate the music contained within the information.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    49. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      if you put any digital processing in the process then it will not make sense to record an LP.

      The format for sales to the consumer as nothing to do with the format used to record and process the sound.

      Using your argument, if you put any digital processing in the process it will not make sense to distribute the music at all, because at a minimum, at the end of the chain from producer to consumer is the analog human ear.

      What I want is to know when 3D printing will take over the time consuming pressing process and we can all make LPs at home.

    50. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      This! I don't want vinyl, what I want is a digital download of the master used to produce the vinyl. The one that doesn't have to compete in the loudness wars and isn't compressed all to hell.

      I don't. I want the person preparing the master to be completely unrestricted and unadvised by any record company. Sure the vinyl mix is better, but vinyl is still a medium that by virtue of it's properties and limitations also places limits on what can be done during mastering. Do mixing right, don't do vinyl, and don't do a loudness war.

    51. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Kohlrabi82 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That.

      What really should have happened, when the loudness war started to rise in the mid 90s, was for manufacturers to replace volume knobs with loudness knobs, with some (dynamics) compressor attached to it. Keep the volume knob, but make it something special common people wouldn't need to touch. That way people could turn up the loudness, which in effect would not just increase the amplitude but also compress dynamics.

      Because altering [i]loudness[/i] is what people actually want. If they are on a train or in a loud environment they want to amplify the amplitude AND compress the signal to be able to hear the full recording. At home at a party you'd want to be able to hear all parts of the music properly and have high volume by just cranking up the knob to 11. In a quiet environment you'd want to be able to experience the full dynamics. For knowledgeable people we'd still have volume knobs to really alter the volume. In the end you could have tuned every well-recorded record to the environment you're in. There would have been zero benefit and need for the insane levels of compression we're seeing today.

    52. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      no, the analog wiggles on a vinyl track are even LESS accurate reps of the real original master.

      not to mention that no sylus in the world can track all grooves 100% perfectly. and if you play a record just once, you ruined it (irreversable wear).

      there are many steps between the master tape and the grooves on the lp. if you think that's 'real analog' you have a lot of reading to do. masters are all digital now and you HAVE to go thru dac phase just to cut the grooves.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    53. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go study digital audio and sampling theory, then get back to us.

    54. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I STILL prefer some albums on vinyl. Why?

      Because you've got a worse representation of a better signal there. Nothing to do with digital vs. analog.

    55. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      You. From you I should expect ignorance all the time. If you record a sound using digital recording and storage, is pointless to make a LP using this digital source, you should use a CD to storing digital sound. Is the only thing I will say to you.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    56. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I already said for an AC, recording an LP only makes sense if your entire mix chain is analog. I assume manufacturers are taking this into consideration of course.

      That would be a bad assumption. There is no reason for them to abandon the cost savings and improvement in editing/mixing abilities of digital. Even old analog masters have been converted to digitally stored masters.

      There would need to be some kind of '100% Pure Analog' claim on the record to have any confidence there was no digital step.

      Even if you got a 100% pure analog record, most of today's AVRs convert their analog inputs to digital, so you'd need to also have your 100% analog playback chain intact.

    57. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about harmonics introduced by higher frequencies impacting the lower (and the reproduction of said harmonics during D/A conversion upon playback), and anti-aliasing of higher frequencies unable to be captured correctly (a la Nyquist).

      Which is completely laughable, because those ultrasonic harmonics have almost no energy to 'impact' lower frequencies with, and most likely are below the noise floor.

      Go ahead - put a high-pass filter on the output from your turntable. I predict you'll have to turn up the volume WAY high to hear anything at all, and if you do, it will most likely be hiss.

    58. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I expect what attracts most aficionados of the format has more to do with the ritual of the format and almost nothing to do with the sound quality. The sound quality isn't better.

      Actually, this exact phenomenon was studied and discussed about 30 years ago in electronics magazines as CDs were just coming out. Their conclusion was that the turntables and tube amps had the natural effect of a low-pass filter up to about 15 kHz with a gentle drop-off above that, and the people that preferred the turntables and tube amps felt that the low-pass filter effect produced a "warmer" sound.

      While the latter was true for them (it's subjective), the arguments of the time that it was a "purer" sound were total crap, just like they are today. Turntables & tubes have far less fidelity than their digital/solid-state counterparts.

    59. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repeating that doesn't make it logical when the discussion is about recording and various media types.

      For the record, I have three albums that sold well enough and probably about 10,000 live shows under my belt.

      Digital is the superior medium. Taste is the only variable. Digital is technologically superior in every way for recording and playback.

    60. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      See, I think you're thinking like an engineer instead of a musician; I have a foot in both worlds so I think I get it.
      Guitar players prefer tube amps, despite them being more expensive, more fragile, tubes wearing out, and so on. Why? "It's got a warmer tone" and similar reasons. Amp manufacturers have gone to great lengths to digitally emulate the characteristics of tube amps because of this, finally resorting to DSP's, which are about as far removed from a vacuum tube as you can get. Sure, vinyl records are clumsy, fragile, they wear out, and they don't have the range of fidelity that an uncompressed digital audio file has, and as you say, each one is slightly differently flawed because it's a purely mechanical medium. But I think people want it for the flaws and the limitations, for similar reasons that guitarists want tube amps: a different tone, a 'warmth' that you can't get as easily from digital formats.
      Of course what they ought to be doing is the way we used to preserve our vinyl records, except updated to the current era: Play your vinyl LPs once, recorded into an uncompressed or lossless format, and play the digital file when you want to listen to it. You'd get all the imperfections and personality of the vinyl record, without risking damage to the vinyl or slowly wearing it out. Of course I'm sure the music industry would have epileptic fits if they found out people were doing this regularly..

    61. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I think what you really want is a digital recording of a virgin copy of the pressed vinyl, so you get all the personality, flaws, and other characteristics of the actual vinyl record, for the full experience.

    62. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Do you realize that compression/expansion is applied very often to various channels of the mix (usually vocals) even at live performances? Even if they don't have a compressor/expander in their stack, they've got someone riding the mixer during the entire set to keep things sounding good out in the house.

    63. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vinyl is an effect much like film and can look/sound much better (or different) Sometimes in art total accuracy is not the best outcome.

      This is also why a lot of guitar players and others like tube amps.

    64. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Marble+River · · Score: 1

      There's zero reason to drive a Model T, a 1957 Caddy or a 1963 Corvette either; new cars are faster/safer/more efficient etc, but plenty of people do drive them. Sometimes an old format is just more fun to some people, and I consider that a very valid reason. Also, the ritual of removing the LP from the sleeve, flipping it over and reading legible liner notes can make the listener feel like part of the process and add to the enjoyment of the music.

    65. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has been tried. There were 16 2/3 rpm records used in background music applications. Tape cartridges and cassettes were more compact, though, and longer-lasting. Since high fidelity isn't needed in those applications, the lack of high frequencies in the 16 2/3 rpm records and cheap tapes wasn't important; they worked fine in the mid-range which is all most PA/background music speakers produced.

      All background music systems now are digital, not for sound quality but for size and durability.

      And yes, there is a loss of high end as record speed goes down. It's the great cartridges and electronics that allow LPs to reproduce high-fidelity sound. Also, it's true that their useful dynamic range is way less than digital or even high-quality analog tape; after all the original masters were tape which then produced the LP masters and stampers. It's possible to get slightly extended highs with 45 rpm which some audiophile types are using now, though getting even 40-50 khz from a vinyl record at 33 1/3 was a solved problem back in the 1980s (required a very special cartridge in a good player, though, was used for a 4-channel system, and wore off the records quickly). Interesting, though, that people think you need flat response to 50 khz for normal listening; when if it comes from an old analog tape the best you can get from it is around 25 khz, most microphones cut off below 25 khz, the human ear even in perfect condition can't hear anything notably above 20 khz (can you hear a dog whistle? Almost certainly not, especially if you're more than 30 years old and have been exposed to normal amounts of noise). A good hearing test used to be, with CRT TVs, whether you could hear the low-level (and sometimes not so low-level) whine from the flyback transformer - 15.something khz - which almost nobody over 40-50 years old can.

    66. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Cutterman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Matter o'fact RIAA equalisation is different from just generalised compression. At the start of the LP era each record producer had its own equalisation scheme so what sounded good on your TT/AMP might sound awful on your neighbour's. So the Recording Industries Association of America (RIAA) tried, and mostly succeeded, in getting folks to use the equalisation scheme that they had so carefully decided on.

      The idea was not so much to "make the mix sound good on vinyl" but to permit greater recording times (by decreasing the mean width of each groove), to improve sound quality, and to reduce the groove damage that would otherwise arise during playback.

      The power cutting-head could probably have coped, but the recorded track would have been wider (so less tracks would fit on the record) and you would have needed a highly compliant stylus, and much higher tracking weight to keep it in the groove (and so muc faster wear).

      The RIAA equalisation curve (NOT compression) was a very neat answer to a difficult problem.

      And sorry, but my carefully cared-for LPs have quite a different sound from CDs/DVDs - not necessarily better but different - somehow warmer and more immediate.

      'Ol Fart Cutterman

                                                                                           

    67. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I refreshed and, once again, I am the same musician AC who has now corrected many bits of misinformation in this thread.

      There are multiple reasons we like tubed amplifiers. The reasons will vary by the artist. In the studio, I use an effects pedal. On stage, I use a mix. I prefer them for their predictability which is conflicted by my preferring them for their inconsistency.

      There are subtle differences when you change tubes, for example.

      But, you get some mild distortion and can adjust to this. In my opinion, it blends the sounds together nicely.

      At the same time, all of my monitors split are solid state. I have been playing long enough, have practiced enough, and prefer to hear myself as accurately as possible while projecting a slightly different sound. I may be a geek but I have been an active musician since the 80s. Earlier, really, but I am counting only my professional stage experience.

      I find that hearing myself without the distorting effects of the pedals or tube amps helps me play technically superior music. I suppose I can link the last band I recorded with, if you want. I've played in a lot of different bands but never made it very big. The current band has been in the studio but not out anything out. We've only been together for about a year but two of us have played together a lot.

    68. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm sitting in a recording studio right now. If you want to hear the music as intended by the musicians you would listen to the recording in the medium of the day.

      An album from 40 years ago was recorded with studio settings to overcome the limitations of vinyl and the pressing process. The sound was better on the vinyl LP than in the studio. Especially with guitars, where the amps treble settings were set high to overcome treble loss in the vinyl process.

      This is also why for the first few years CD's sounded like shit, harsh was the common term, btw.

      There is no reason to listen to a recording from last week on vinyl. The people mixing/mastering the music are not mixing/mastering for vinyl. You will not hear the song as intended. It will be degraded.

      My old guy classic rock and jazz albums are on vinyl. Most everything else over the last few decades I buy on CD or download in a lossless format.

      Bands releasing vinyl LPs in modern times is a gimmick. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and I do pick up a vinyl version of a new release now and then myself, but not for the sound of vinyl.

      To add insult to audiophiles who fuss over their gear (like me), we have a pair of really, really shitty speakers in the studio here that we use for our final mix down. We do not mix for audiophiles, we mix for the shitty speakers 95% of listeners have.

      And along that same line, I use standard mic cables, guitar, patching and speaker cables, I do not purchase 1,000 dollar oxygen free copper or whatever the voodoo of the day is in my studio, I have no idea why some people spend more money on cables than speakers or room treatments at home.

    69. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to step out shortly. You'll have to cut and paste, if you want. I figured I'd just get you a link and sample.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BOUy5YBeTWM

    70. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You. From you I should expect ignorance all the time.

      And your forte is personal insult.

      If you record a sound using digital recording and storage, is pointless to make a LP using this digital source,

      Unless the consumer wants to buy an LP. I'll say it again since you missed it the first time: the format used to sell the content has nothing to do with the formats used to produce it.

      The format for the final product depends nothing on the source, but only on the convenience and desires of the customer. Some people liked the 8-track tape format because it was convenient. Some like 1/4" cassette. Some like vinyl. Some like CDs. Some like only SACD. Some like MP3 files. Some people are satisfied to hear the content on FM radio. The takeaway lesson from this is that people will sacrifice purity and accuracy of reproduction for convenience. To tell them that they must accept only the most pure and precise format for obtaining content is arrogant and stupid. (And CD isn't the best, by the way.)

      you should use a CD to storing digital sound.

      If the only concern was how to store the sound, you'd still be amazingly wrong. If you have digital sound, how you store it depends on how often you need to access it. In that equation CD always loses -- capacity is low and physical medium management is poor. It is also becoming obsolete. A DVD is marginally better. Short term storage should be on disk (fast, random-access), archiving on a digital tape (LTO, etc.) CDs are ungainly, hard to manage, and limited in size.

      Is the only thing I will say to you.

      I pray that is true, but will not bet even $10 on it.

    71. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Well fairly recently I picked up a Bach piece done by Bell that was well done. Classical, not pop. I'm glad I got it on CD and not vinyl. Vinyl would have more media noise. But yeah, I totally understand you gotta be pretty and famous, not you can sing requirement of today's entertainers. I blame music videos.

    72. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some guitarists prefer tube amps.

      Yup. Same AC musician who has been correcting all sorts of bits of misinformation in this thread. Blanket statements are a bit silly, usually.

    73. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by tungstencoil · · Score: 1

      But we're talking about CD sampling/recording rates, not turntables here.

      The original frequencies aren't necessarily below the noise floor of the recording process, and can introduce harmonics during the playback process. Many do have enough "energy"; there's no magical cutoff at 20kHz just because that's pretty much the upper range of human hearing.

      You can argue - somewhat correctly - that those harmonics within audio range would be captured by the lower (CD-quality) sampling rate.. but herein lies one of the things that, depending upon conditions, can be heard. It's not the same sound profile as playing back the actual higher frequencies because (shockingly enough) playback conditions impact how it sounds. Note I'm not saying one would sound better than the other, just noticeably different.

      Also, if you have inferior AD conversion and low-pass filters when recording, anti-aliasing can be a problem caused by higher frequencies. Again, I'm talking strictly about higher sampler rates and storage at "better than we can hear" quality. AC (not sure if it was you) argued it was completely identical under all cases unless you were some kind of mutant. That just isn't true. It's mostly true, but not completely.

      Finally, if we were to do what you suggest with a vinyl record, it... doesn't prove much of anything. Why? You're only passing the higher frequencies. The harmonics occur at a lower frequency in terms of the music. Ostensibly, you're playing inaudible frequencies against line noise, which will of course sound like line noise. This, of course, assumes that the recording wasn't at some point or another passed through some kind of EQ or digital recording (same sample rate discussion) that didn't remove them. Digital recording goes back much further than most people think..

      Emphasis here on something that is mostly irrelevant: the difference between OP saying it's impossible for there to be any distinguishing characteristic for humans, and then talking about what the practical implications are. You really should read the short article I linked, it gives a fair, if high-level, explanation.

    74. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by tungstencoil · · Score: 1

      ... anti-aliasing can be a problem caused by higher frequencies.

      Oops... *aliasing* not *anti-aliasing*.

    75. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay! I am not the only one being sensible in the thread.

      I refreshed, again. I really need to get to the store, however.

      I am also a musician but would not classify myself as an audiophile. I am not an engineer. I am just a musician. I've been trying to make corrections to the many, many errors in this thread.

    76. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When CDs first came out people praised their clarity, rather than complaining about them being harsh.

      50 years ago people often listened on Dansettes or cheap transistor radios, and recordings were often on four tracks that had multiple bounce downs with compromised quality, and lack of proper stereo. I'm pretty sure it's not what musicians wanted, even if things were much improved by 1977 during the swansong of prog.

    77. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

      they put better mixes on records for pure marketing reasons.

      Not quite, although overall I agree with your assessment of the situation. Among other things, vinyl actually requires what I would call a "dumbed down" mix/master-- that is, it can't be too loud; and, in the low end, there can't be too much stereo information. All of these are related to the physical limitation of the needle and the grooves necessary to reproduce sound on vinyl.

      That said, depending on the genre you like, you might like vinyl *mixes* (which *are* in many cases different mixes than ones you might hear today that are "remastered for iTunes"). This is because songs on vinyl are mixed and mastered more dynamically (or, "quietly"). Modern digital music tends to be really really loud, so the difference between loud and soft parts is kind of negligible. Certain genres, of course, lend themselves to loud-- EDM, heavy metal...

      I really don't care about vinyl either way, except that I think people who think it is a better medium for music are complete suckers. The science behind "vinyl is better" is one to be understood in terms of packaging and tactile experience, and has zero to do with audio in terms of the vinyl medium's ability to reproduce sound vs. digital.

    78. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you take an analog signal and bandpass it between 5000 and 6000 Hz it is still analog, but has assuredly lost information.

    79. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      No there is no approximation. If your sound source is playing within 0-22Khz and a dynamic range at 0-96dB then a 16-bit 44Khz digitized medium such as a CD can reproduce any signals from that source with 100% accuracy. You might then argue that "but what if there is some signal between two samples, then those are missed!", well yes but if there are signals between two samples then those are from frequencies above 22Khz.

      Another thing to take home that many of the "analogue is king" crowd tends to overlook is that the PCM data that you see in a sampling editor is not what will be sent to your speakers when played back. In the DAC the original sine waves (from the source to the ADC) will be recreated exactly by applying what is called the sine sinc to the samples.

      Found a good explanation if you're interested here: http://control.ucsd.edu/mauric...

    80. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Also, if you have inferior AD conversion and low-pass filters when recording, anti-aliasing can be a problem caused by higher frequencies.

      Yeah, which they fixed a long time ago with oversampling. This is a non-issue nowadays.

    81. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      There is also no way to record to an analog medium without loss of information. The question is, which loss is greater? The answer is, the loss to vinyl is greater than the loss to CD.

      Back when CDs were new technology, people were going to great lengths to try to make the most perfect recording possible. I have an early CD of 1812 overture recorded using actual cannons. It is amazing and exceeds anything possible with vinyl. Because back in 1984 only audiophiles were buying CDs, great care was taken to deliver a high quality product.

      However, once the masses started buying CDs no care was taken any more and we started having the loudness wars which threw out the very thing that CDs offered: greater dynamic range (i.e. from very quite violin solo to actual 17th century cannon).

      Today, the tables are turned. Audiophiles are buying vinyl and the masses are buying compressed streams. Therefore, great care is taken to deliver a high-quality vinyl product.

      Few doubt that a quality recording pressed to vinyl is going to be better than slapdash work pressed to CD. There is more to sound reproduction than the medium used to deliver it.

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    82. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      It is? Where does it record the timbre of the particular reed that I am using in my Saxophone?

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    83. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      Few doubt that a quality recording pressed to vinyl is going to be better than slapdash work pressed to CD. There is more to sound reproduction than the medium used to deliver it.

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    84. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      Tell you what, you look up the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem and then we'll talk.

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    85. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by tungstencoil · · Score: 1

      Two kinds of oversampling:

      You're probably referring to upsampling upon playback (reconstruction). It is a "fix" in the sense that it obfuscates, it is not error correction. This only reinforces my point, which was that it is not impossible - or even implausible - that a human could distinguish in a blind test a recording made at a higher sampling frequency (than 44.1) compared to an identical one at CD quality.

      If you're referring to sampling at a higher rate than the Nyquist frequency at recording, the reason that's done is because you can hear the difference if it isn't recorded at a higher rate. The big difference here is that post-processing allows storage of the smaller amount of information (frequency and bit rate) of the target. I'm simplifying a bit here, but that's actually my point: you can hear the difference.

      Perhaps you're solely focused on playback frequency in the discussion? I'm not. I'm suggesting that, at any point in the chain, if you operate solely at 44.1kHz sampling rate, you will lose something, in spite of the fact that human hearing tops out at about 20kHz.

      Cheers!

    86. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "Repeating that doesn't make it logical when the discussion is about recording and various media types."

      Son, if you don't recognize SHEET MUSIC as a valid media type, you're no musician by any fucking means, and I doubt you even have the actual albums under your belt you claim to have.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    87. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Khyber · · Score: 0

      In the upper section where notes like tuning, reed type for the instrument, and octave range belong, oh ye who has never written or read sheet music.

      And for Guitars, the tablature tells you specifically the string and fret instead of just the general note, so you can match the timbre and tonality perfectly.

      It's like you've never actually been taught how to use sheet music.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    88. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably referring to upsampling upon playback (reconstruction)

      Nope, I'm talking about recording.

      If you're referring to sampling at a higher rate than the Nyquist frequency at recording, the reason that's done is because you can hear the difference if it isn't recorded at a higher rate. The big difference here is that post-processing allows storage of the smaller amount of information (frequency and bit rate) of the target. I'm simplifying a bit here, but that's actually my point: you can hear the difference.

      The reason it's done is to allow sharp anti-aliasing filtering before downsampling. This eliminates any aliasing in the 44.1kHz version. These "inferior low-pass filters" you worry about are no longer used.

    89. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      This! I don't want vinyl, what I want is a digital download of the master used to produce the vinyl. The one that doesn't have to compete in the loudness wars and isn't compressed all to hell.

      IIRC this is exactly what Neil Young's pono player was offering, which was confused by other top musicians that heard it with the pono player technically being superior to CD and SACD.

    90. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Loudness wars had been going on for a decade on vinyl in the 1970s-80s. The media limited how bad it could get. Happened on cassette a lot (trying to hide the hiss).

      There was a time when vinyl had one mix/eq (for average home audio), while cassette and 8-track had another (for crap car stereos of the day).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    91. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I can tell you haven't either. There is a reason that conductor exists as a profession and that people will go see the same piece played by different people or even just multiple times by the same performer. Sheet music records merely an abstraction of the notes and their duration and provides suggestions for how it should be played. It records ZERO of the subtleties of an actual performance.

    92. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheet music is closer to digital than to analog. It's symbolically coded discrete information.

    93. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by jcr · · Score: 1

      How the fuck do you lose information in an analog medium!

      Oh, for fuck's sake. If you can't answer that question yourself, then STFU and quit embarrassing yourself.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    94. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by jcr · · Score: 1

      I can tell that you don't know the difference between an analog recoding and a symbolic representation. Thanks for playing, and better luck next time.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    95. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Yes, it can absolutely provide the subtleties right down to saying "tremolo at semihemidemiquaver for this note." There's a good reason for all that whitespace. It's called a note margin and that's EXACTLY what they're there for. I can tell you've never actually used sheet music in your life.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    96. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's a difference between someone saying "YOU'RE CLEARLY WRONG, ALL OF 'X' PREFER 'Y' 100% OF THE TIME", and saying "I think 'X' prefers 'Y'".

      Blanket statements are a bit silly, usually.

      Sounds quite a bit like a blanket statement to me. Are you a grammar and spelling nazi, too? Pedantic, perhaps?

      'Nit picking' is not constructive. If you have to be so florid in your writing style just because someone like you is going to come along and nit-pick someone like Rick, then we're not going to get anywhere in any conversation, we'll all get bogged down in protocol and avoidance of offending the over-sensitive sensibilities of someone like yourself. At the very least it sucks all the fun out of discussing anything, if you take into account that nobody here is (ostensibly, at least) being paid to post comments, we do it because we (ostensibly) enjoy it. TL,DR: Lighten up, already. Nobody is solving the world's problems or making policy decisions here, it's just light conversation.

    97. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Great, now the ignorant have mod points to "argument" when he is unable to understand what I said. Way to go Slashdot...

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    98. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a piece of shit, moron. Is why every one ignores your shit.

    99. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Okay, you win. That's what I get for trying to argue with stupid people. You can happily come back to your basement now because I will not waste any more time trying to explain what I'm talking about.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    100. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? We're "stupid" because you can't make your point clear?

      The way to avoid loss of information when digitizing is to use a sufficiently high sampling rate - at least 2x the highest frequency in the signal.

      Yes, CDs throw away part of the signal. That is not an argument against digital in general.

    101. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend of mine had an ELP record that to me had an unlistenable high frequency whine on, but he could not hear it. I've never experienced that on CD. Ok, maybe on Neil Young records.

    102. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      You picked the right one for that. I'm reading sheet music several times a week since being a kid.

      No need to repeat those people who already told you how wrong you are with the rest of your post.

      --
      bickerdyke
    103. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a bunch of autistic retards here arguing about bits in a PCM file vs sheet music. you're all a bunch of clowns who are being purposely dense. hey, you ever compare a book on sex to actually fucking? you read the book. the rest of us people who don't need pills to be normal just fuck. not you - we fuck each other. you're clearly too ugly a social outcast. go on, tell us more about how sheet music is an audio. moron.

    104. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you most certainly do not get a cd reproducing the source with 100% accuracy. DAC perfectly reproduces source because of a a low pass filter? you should look up quantization noise. it's in the source frequency range, after you cut off the highs. but you don't really know anything besides some basic basics and terms you read the meaning of which you don't understand. in fact, I bet your knowledge on the subject comes from 10 min of reading shit online. just now.

    105. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

    106. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by titten · · Score: 1

      ...guitar players prefer tube amps.

      Not bashing tube amps here, but this is something entirely different. Guitar players, and their amps, are creating music. Not reproducing it. In this context, the amp can be considered a musical instrument.

    107. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "hey, you ever compare a book on sex to actually fucking?"

      Bad analogy, since I worked in the porn industry, you fucking tool. I know more about sex than your perma-virgin ass.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    108. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "go on, tell us more about how sheet music is an audio"

      Further proof you failed basic music classes in high school (or middle school, even, if you're even that old to have had that as a mandatory class.)

      Deaf people used this to create the best music ever written so far, you goddamned idiot.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    109. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      ..no, you're missing the point entirely. I'm drawing a parallel between two groups for their reasons for preferring what many considering 'obsolete' technology. Also I disagree that a guitar amp is a musical instrument, unless you think 60Hz hum is 'music' -- because without the actual instrument plugged into it, that's all it does. it's a 'sound reinforcement device', really, and while the preamp settings do set the tone, it doesn't make the music all by itself, it reproduces it. You could play an acoustic guitar and not need an amp at all.

    110. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deaf people can write good music therefore sheet music is a recording of audio. Your logic is impeccable.

      Have you taken your pills today, young one? Or have you taken too many pills in your youth, old one?

      Hey, while you read this, did you hear my voice in your head and the sound of my buddy laughing at you in the background, about 6db lower? If you didn't, you failed basic English in high school. You know why you failed basic English? Because mute people write the best books.

      May I guess on an unrelated note that you are quite a bit on the ugly side?

    111. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you would make any such assumption. And even if it were (it isn't), it doesn't negate point 2.

    112. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by DrXym · · Score: 1
      I expect someone has produced a distortion filter for digital audio which makes it sound like a record player. It's lossy of course but I wonder what the outcome of an A+B test would be for that.

      Vinyl had its day. These days it's just a scam aimed at audiophiles.

    113. Re: Have they added DRM yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aah shit just stumbled on this one. HA! Dude - are you actually on and on that notes on a piece of paper records audio? Do you draw dicks on an envelope and mail it to supermodels and then tell people you've banged them?

      I have seen some dumbasses here, but you take the cake. Here - let me draw you one. Did you know that a drawing of cake is a photo of a cake, therefore if I draw a cake that means that cake exists!

      Anywise... Found the guy who doesn't know the difference between eyes and ears.

    114. Re:Have they added DRM yet? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      The sine sinc is not a low pass filter, it's the reverse of the sampling. With it you can recreate 100% every sound wave that you sampled as long as the source is within the ranges I described. The quantization noise for music is so low that no human can distinguish between the raw source and the CD version as long as volume levels are properly adjusted for. So while the signal might not be 100% identical it is 100% identical as far as the human ears are concerned.

  2. Now by The-Ixian · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can they solve the problem of the record skipping in my car?

    I have all of the gold plated monster cables and everything....

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    1. Re:Now by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      they used to make spring suspension record players for cars! long time ago, 50's I think.

      there was also a spring reverb with a sender and receiver across 2 literal metal springs. they had those for car audio, too ;)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Now by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 2

      Here's Muhammad Ali with in-car vinyl

    3. Re:Now by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 5, Informative

      Can they solve the problem of the record skipping in my car?

      I know you're joking, but for those who don't know, they actually did try record players in cars many years ago. They were very expensive and had lots of drawbacks.
      http://gajitz.com/road-tunes-w...

    4. Re: Now by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Mechanically, they were similar to the generation or two of turn-of-the-century ultra- ultra- ultra-high-end car CD players that minimized skipping by mechanical means (vibration-dampening, etc) instead of just letting it skip, but reading the disc 4-16x faster & buffering enough to keep the output pipeline filled during the recovery. Which, incidentally, sounded WAY better than the ones that relied on buffering since audio cds have no concept of tracks or sectors, so figuring out precisely WHERE to continue after a skip event is problematic (redbook audio has no FEC, so you could potentially read the same chunk 5 times & get 2-5 chunks that differ by at least a single byte. That's why DAE apps like Exact Audio Copy read everything multiple times, try to line up the chunks, and determine which byte is the right value, and which ones were just read errors).

    5. Re:Now by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Get your vinyl records, get a decent turntable, get a decent ADC/DAC (24 bit would be good) for your computer, record the one-time virgin playback of the new vinyl, encode it into FLAC (or just leave it uncompressed), play the digital recording of the vinyl in your car ad infinitum. All the qualities of vinyl without any of the drawbacks.

  3. Makes me wonder... by nava68 · · Score: 1

    ... how the millions of LPs. EPs and singles were manufactured in ancient times! IRC its not only the pressing, but also the production of pucks and the creation of negative masters that do slow down the production nowadays - not many of the suppliers of specialized services left (some goes for the accumulated knowledge). That aside it seems a good idea that some of the press runs in the 70s and 80s would have needed to avoid that crappy quality sold back then.

    1. Re:Makes me wonder... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      ... how the millions of LPs. EPs and singles were manufactured in ancient times!

      Simple. There were many more factories back then and multiple levels of masters. However even then, the gold master would get worn out eventually, but by then millions of copies would have been made.

      That aside it seems a good idea that some of the press runs in the 70s and 80s would have needed to avoid that crappy quality sold back then.

      Well quality wasn't merely on the replication side due to bad press runs. Production costs on the original recordings were always being trimmed. You see these days in many industries like film. Today it is far easier to duplicate theatrical films with the use of digital cameras, and the time between theater release and home release is getting shorter and shorter. However, that doesn't mean that DVDs, Blurays, etc. are better. Cut out of many initial home releases are many extras like commentary, sketches, etc. Much later there might be a special edition or director's cut which will include them but most releases don't have them these days.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Makes me wonder... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Back then that was the only way to sell music, so they had to build the factory equipment to produce and stamp the LPs.

      Today, vinyl records are a fad. And the manufacturers know it's a fad so they're afraid to invest money in manufacturing equipment, lest they be stuck with a bunch of useless equipment when the fad dies.

    3. Re:Makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh, seems to me that this "fad" has lasted over 80 years so far...not bad for a "fad". You might want to look at some sales data and note that this "fad" has been INCREASING for well over a decade. Note also that you still have a HUGE number of albums that NEVER were issued on digital formats. Vinyl is literally the ONLY way you can listen to these recordings today. Also, don't bet on being able to play a CD in 80 years...but I would bet money that you will still find turntables capable of playback.

    4. Re:Makes me wonder... by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Vinyl wasn't a fad for the first 60 years, only the last 20.

    5. Re:Makes me wonder... by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      I'm temped to take that bet. I'm quite sure in 80 years there will still be vintage CD players that can play vintage CDs just like there are currently vintage record players. The supply of those vintage CD players may be limited but (just like the current vinyl trend) if there is enough demand some one may still produce new CD players as well.

  4. Injection moulding by dZap · · Score: 1

    Injection moulding is a real step change compared to this

  5. Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Vinyl had a tech update decades ago. It's called "CDs".

    This obsession with obsolete and empirically inferior technology is baffling. Yes, I know it started as a backlash over bad MP3 compression, but that obsession killed superior technologies, the tech upgrades to CDs - SACD, DVD-A and pure DTS albums. All you vinyl obsessed people are making things worse, not better.

    What's next? Let's all go back to watching movies on VHS and old CRTs! It's how the director wanted it to be seen, right? How about analogue cellphones and leaded gasoline?

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    1. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what I was going to say. Vinyl introduces distortion to the sound. It simply sounds awful. Not only that but the quality degrades every time you play it! It's shit!

    2. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, empirically, people are buying vinyl.

    3. Re:Oh for goodness sake by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      I have shelves full of DVD-As, which I treasure. I also treasure my vinyl when I love an album enough to want a physical representation. Why? Two reasons:

      • Cover art: Vinyl is the best way to deliver large scale artwork
      • Simplicity: DVD-A has DRM. CDs require complicated playback hardware. You can build your own record player if you want to.

      I don't run around pretending that records sound better... They don't. But that's not the point, the point is to have a physical recording of music that I love that'll still work when we can no longer play our DVD-As and CDs, and to be able to appreciate the printed artwork. Otherwise, I just stream it.

    4. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Vinyl had a tech update decades ago. It's called "CDs".

      This obsession with obsolete and empirically inferior technology is baffling. Yes, I know it started as a backlash over bad MP3 compression,

      Even shitty MP3s have better sound quality than vinyl.

      The "resurgence" of vinyl is driven by hipster douchebags chasing the latest fad.

    5. Re:Oh for goodness sake by avandesande · · Score: 0

      The cds I bought in the mid 80s died 15 years later... I have 50s records that play same as when they were new.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    6. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      You are 100% right on cover-art - I do miss that from the vinyl days - but it is ultimately about the music.

      I'm not saying we needed to keep CDs around. We could have easily have sold lossless compression audio tracks. In fact, there are sites that do just that.

      I still buy CDs, but any CD I buy gets ripped -- in a lossless format -- to my media server. My various media players (including the one connected to my stereo) can then access those.

      And I do the same with DVD-A and music Blu-Rays, so any DRM there might've been on them is not effective in any way (SACD is a different story, though).

      So I technically "built" my own player for those. I seriously doubt you can build your own record player that would be even remotely decent quality.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    7. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      I grew up with vinyl being the pinnacle of Hi-Fi. It was better than tapes and WAY better than 8-track.

      I remember the first time I heard a CD. It was mind-blowing.

      And the first time I heard an SACD, same deal.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    8. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the reasons they give for this preference are almost always provably false.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    9. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      I wish it was a fad, but it's been going on for way too long. It needs to go away, please, so we can actually have the technology advance, rather than recede. ...then we just have to get people to produce good music again.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    10. Re:Oh for goodness sake by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      pirate bay (etc) has tons of sacd and dsd files at 88.2 and 176.4k.

      somehow (playstation?) they ripped them digitally.

      its still hard to rip sacd but not impossible.

      today's dacs can play up to 192k and even dsd direct.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vinyl had a tech update decades ago. It's called "CDs".

      This obsession with obsolete and empirically inferior technology is baffling. Yes, I know it started as a backlash over bad MP3 compression, but that obsession killed superior technologies, the tech upgrades to CDs - SACD, DVD-A and pure DTS albums. All you vinyl obsessed people are making things worse, not better.

      What's next? Let's all go back to watching movies on VHS and old CRTs! It's how the director wanted it to be seen, right? How about analogue cellphones and leaded gasoline?

      That statement isn't true in the technical sense or subjective sense. Technically, vinyl records do have the capability to produce a closer representation to the original (there is no digital sampling), whether or not a human can detect the difference. And, subjectively, many people, myself included, like vinyl records because they are like a piece of art. They're nicer to handle and display. There's an enjoyable factor in putting one on and listening to it, even more than with a CD (or tape or minidisc or whatever).

    12. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Even shitty MP3s have better sound quality than vinyl."

      I definitely wouldn't go that far.

    13. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      And yet, empirically, people are buying vinyl.

      Empirically Hipsters are buying vinyl.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    14. Re:Oh for goodness sake by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      the thing about records: for many, they want to own the actual record and so this increases SALES. you can't directly bit-copy it and most home a/d converters suck, so copies would suck (not to mention most riaa phone preamps are junk unless you pay a lot).

      so, its not technically drm but it does encourage more sales than copies.

      I think that is 99% why they are still being made. purely because the rubes keep BUYING them.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    15. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      No, they don't. By their very nature, they don't.

      That stylus going over the record each time you play it? Yeah, that's degrading the signal. Every. Single. Time.

      Also note that I'm not saying CDs were perfect. I'm saying the technology should have moved forward, but vinyl means it has moved backwards.

      Also, vinyl records can break, crack and melt if you leave them on the dashboard. And I have CDs from two decades and three continents ago that still work. So that's a nice subjective problem you're seeing.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    16. Re:Oh for goodness sake by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      I am kinda sad DVD-A did make it. A DVD holds enough data that you could deliver basically any normal length album, and even compilations at a higher quality than any of the other stereo equipment a person has could replicate anyway. The 5" disk is a good size its comfortable to handle and easy to carry/store lots of them in book/sleeve style cases. Maybe 3" disk or 3.5" would be better and you could do that with DVD-A too!

      Now all that is obsoleted by the fact that you can buy an SD card today that will hold someones entire collection (in a lot of cases) at similarly good quality.

      The thing I liked/like about vinyl is the cover art and liner notes. There is no law that says the disk has to be as big as that stuff though. I also have some CDs that came with posters and things neatly folded inside, so its plenty possible to do artistic things in the 5" format. I know some folks claim redbook audio isn't as good as analog off clean vinyl with a top quality cartridge/needle/turntable. I find this claim highly suspect, even if true than certainly 96-bit 48000 closed the gap.

      I really wish these people would recognize they are letting this nostalgia stuff go a bit far. Its one thing to keep using some superseded technology because the existing stuff you have is 'good enough' and therefore not really obsolete or because the older stuff is cheaper to buy/operate. Its a different mater to go out of your way to obtain and build an entire ecosystem around a technology that really is obsolete and offers no material advantage of any kind over current methods. If there is something like DRM that is objectionable with current technology go out in the market place and demand DRM free $TECH item. If the market is willing to invest in the capital goods to return to pressing vinyl than its willing do deliver music in just about anyone other way imaginable if people really insisted on it. DRM exists because beyond Slashdot DRM isn't really that important to consumers, DRM free in the case of things like vinyl is a side effect its not the reason people are choosing vinyl.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    17. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      I said it's a different story, I didn't say it's impossible.

      I have one SACD left that I can't find in another format nor ripped by someone else in a format I can do anything with. I just have to be very gentle with it.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    18. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old school razors also were supposed to be replaced by electric razors, a "technological improvement". Only, many people decided they liked the old way better.

    19. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ". It simply sounds awful."

      What is your reference point? You sound like someone raised on industrial, synthetic strawberry marshmallow spread complaining about the taste of real strawberries.

      PS: It's all about the speakers.

    20. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you're saying pretty much proves my point, especially when you talk about vinyl as a "piece of art". specifically, as a piece of visual art. I'm talking about the music and sound quality. Yes, nice bit cover art is cool, but I'll take higher audio quality over that any time. The same way that I want a poster to look nice rather than sound nice when I unfurl it or feel good when I touch it.

      And saying vinyl produces a more accurate sound is, if you will forgive me, the exact opposite of true. The medium is by it's nature distorted. No digital sampling? Perhaps. But you have inaccurate analog modeling that gets degraded every single time you play it. Digital sampling is 100% accurate 100% of the time.

      And what do you say about albums that were produced using digital equipment to begin with? I've had people argue that Brothers In Arms by Dire Straits sounds better on vinyl because "That's how it was meant to be heard". That album was produced specifically to take advantage of the newly-available CD's capabilities. And that is not a recent album.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    21. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      I mean, obviously they make and sell them because people buy them, but the recording industry was happy to let that technology die. For all their ills (and there are many!), RIAA didn't create this fad. They aren't really even heavily pushing it, to be honest. They still make more money if they don't need to produce anything physical.

      This really all started because some people "hated" the low-quality MP3/AAC/Whatever they were getting, back when iTunes was selling you 128K/b MP3s. Even though studies showed self-proclaimed audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between that and a CD, but that's besides the point. Rather than demanding higher bitrates or lossless audio (you know, better stuff), or just buying CDs which were, at the time, still in their prime, people went all the way back to vinyl.

      And yes, a lot of that was probably the visual/tactile appeal, but... again, this is supposed to be about music.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    22. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I've never owned Vinyl. Cassettes had long since killed vinyl by the time I was old enough to care- so I can't give any first hand account of durability; however, I can quite confidently state that the very first CDs I ever bought still work 100% with no issues. So I can't understand the claim of CDs dying in 15 years.

      Incidentally, my cassettes all sound horrible now unfortunately. Not sure if that's because I'm so used to digital now, or they just degraded. It's a shame, a lot of good music I liked that I simply can't stomach listening to in its current format.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    23. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old school razors also were supposed to be replaced by electric razors, a "technological improvement". Only, many people decided they liked the old way better.

      Well a big part of that is that electric razors never truly get close enough. They're alright for the Don Johnson look but when it comes to having a truly smooth face even a cartridge razor does a better job and if you want to shave your head smooth then an electric just won't do the job at all.

    24. Re:Oh for goodness sake by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      No, they don't. By their very nature, they don't.

      That stylus going over the record each time you play it? Yeah, that's degrading the signal. Every. Single. Time

      You're most likely correct, but you don't know what kind of equipment he's using. If it's one of these Then no, there is no wear or degradation. I've seen a few of the EPL turntables, but could never personally justify the cost. I think the cheapest model was around $9K at one point. I have no idea what they go for these days.

    25. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Cover art: Vinyl is the best way to deliver large scale artwork

      Get the digital copy for the superior music, I'm sure the cover art is available online- print it off if you want a physical copy of the cover art. Best of both worlds.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    26. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      I should note that someone in another comment pointed out that vinyl has built-in DRM. Go ahead, make a perfect copy of a vinyl record (:

      The cover art was a good thing about vinyl, to be sure. And I actually have some vinyl sleeves hanging up in my office (with the vinyl record in them because I don't need it - and I only have those because they were included in a boxed set of remastered 5.1 remixes on blu-ray).

      And, see, that's where the mainstream tech should have gone. We went hidef with video, and in fact the audio on blu-ray (or equivalent) movies is spectacular, even when it's old, old music that predates these formats (the music pretty much made Guardians of the Galaxy, for example). The master tapes for many classic albums are available and can produce that sound quality, and yet a precious few are released in that format...

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    27. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      It's probably a bit of both. Cassette tapes could be made to have fairly high quality (Chrome/Metal tapes, for example) but the commercial ones you could buy were neither. And playing them over and over will degrade them. One of the advantages of CDs was that the read head never physically touches the medium.

      I don't remember cassettes ever "killing off" vinyl, though. They existed side by side. What we'd do (until CDs showed up) was buy the vinyl and a good That's chrome tape, so we could share (:

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    28. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't particularly care for vinyl but I must say that there is a certain amount of respect involved in taking one out of its covers, placing it onto the record player, and setting the needle down.

      I think that respect is worth something.

    29. Re:Oh for goodness sake by houghi · · Score: 1

      There are cars, yet people still ride horses, because they like to do so. And if there are enough people interested in it, why not use new tech to improve the way they spend their time?

      We have lighters, yet some people are still interested in making fire by hand for whatever reason. We have boats, bridges and tunnels, yet some people still like to swim across the Channel using modern technologies, like wetsuits.

      There are people who play with cards, while we have computers. People who like to run, while we have more efficient ways of transport.

      Yes, people are obsessed about their hobbies and they should be as they like doing what they do. Nobody is asking you to do the same. Nobody cares you don't have a hobby. You should not care if others do.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    30. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      *laughs* yes, I was aware of those devices, but I think it's a pretty good guess that they're NOT what the above poster is using.

      I got autosubscribed to an audiophile catalogue once (you buy ONE sacd...) The crazy stuff I saw in there. $25,000 for a turntable, and that does not include the $20,000 stylus! $50,000 cabinets that use friggin magnets to friggin levitate your record player so there are no vibrations.

      And cables! $300/ft. Three. Hundred. Dollars. Per. Foot.

      Oh and that's before the extra services. An extra $50/ft for pre-stressing it, simulating 1,000 hours of usage because that's how long it takes the electrons to align correctly. And $50/ft for pre-tensioning, simulating 1,000 hours of tension on the cable so lose electrons don't fall off!

      I actually made one of those up, but I don't remember which one.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    31. Re:Oh for goodness sake by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the reasons they give for this preference are almost always provably false.

      For any modern recording, I completely agree. But there have been a lot of really bad remasters to CD over the years. Granted, they've gotten better about that. But it was pretty bad when things were first put on CD.

      There was a UK recording studio that had not calibrated the recording speed of their tape recorder for several years during the 1960's. It was slower than the standard. So there were, and still are, a lot of recordings that were remastered on CD and are actually pitch shifted slightly higher because of this, and the songs were slightly shorter.

    32. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 2

      It's definitely a tactile experience, but I'm not sure I'd go as far as "respect". I grew up with vinyl, and I remember my dad teaching me how to take the record out of the sleeve without touching the part the tracks were on (my hands were too small to reach the spindle hole and the sides), how to carefully put it on the turntable, how to use the felt brush to clean as much dust as possible off, and yes, how to drop the needle. And I remember the sound of the needle hitting, and the scratches/pops of those first few seconds before it reached actual audio.

      So I've been there, done that, and am happy to leave it in the past!

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    33. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 2

      Virtually nobody uses horses as a means of transportation. And if you'd like to do some research about what New York City was like when horses were prevalent, you'll see why we moved away from that.

      Everything else you're talking about is niche at best, too.

      And I'm not talking about a mere "hobby". I'm talking about a fad that did, in fact, cause technology to regress. Audio quality was improving (steel-spool), improving (8-track), improving (vinyl), improving (CD), improving (DVD-A/SACD), degrading (128bit MP3), and the backlash to that made it degrade all the way back to vinyl.

      Now high-quality audio is the niche. How does that make sense?

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    34. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      > But there have been a lot of really bad remasters to CD over the years

      This is 100% correct. CDs can be made to sound bad, and the Loudness Wars lead to a lot of that...

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    35. Re:Oh for goodness sake by unapersson · · Score: 1

      Did it really start like that or has it simply never gone away? I started listening to vinyl in the 80s and haven't really stopped since. I've just always found it more enjoyable than either of the digital equivalents, it's just more fun than juggling CDs or file management (and I've tried both).

      If you want to push digital files on optical disks then surely you're better off trying to convince those who already buy CDs or have moved to downloads/streaming.

    36. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... industrial, synthetic strawberry marshmallow spread

      Where can I get some of that!?!?

    37. Re:Oh for goodness sake by havana9 · · Score: 1

      What's next? Let's all go back to watching movies on VHS and old CRTs! It's how the director wanted it to be seen, right? How about analogue cellphones and leaded gasoline?

      I still have in use an old Sony 33 inch CRT with Trinitron tube. It's standard definition of course but the quality it's really good, the black is black and the colours are quide good. I don't need a soundbar to get a decent soud, because due the fact the case has to be big, it's not a proble to put in a couple of 16 cm woofers. And sit switches on in seconds because doesn't have to boot a complex OS to enable the 'smart' functions. It' has no DRM functions and the user interface is intuitive. If I want Smart TV function, I've hooked a Raspberry Pi.
      Please let me explain why I should thrash it and buy a tincan-sounding washed picture and bug ridden LCD television?
      The long playing has a big advantage on CD and is that due the limitations of the medium it's not feasible go in the loudness compression war that hapens with digital formats, so and older mastering for vynils sounds better with a modern remastering with all the tracks overcompressed and a dynamic range of 6 dB on a 96 dB capable medium, and of course it's really fifficult install malware with a record even if theoretically possible https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

    38. Re:Oh for goodness sake by avandesande · · Score: 1

      You don't know what your talking about. The aluminum film oxidizes and the CDs 'rot'.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    39. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Vinyl was dying, with many new releases never even being released on that format. So yeah, it did kind of go away for a bit.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    40. Re:Oh for goodness sake by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Tapes were trying to solve a different problem though. The goal of tapes an 8-tracks was not simple distribution as was vinyl it was portability. They were actually highly successful at that! My entire generation has found memories of our walkmans!

      That said you did not plan tapes on your home stereo if you could avoid it.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    41. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lemme know where I can get a mint copy of Led Zeppelin II or Yes' Fragile on SACD for 50 cents like I can get records at yard sales or thrift stores.

      With that, a grado cartridge, an old HH Scott turntable, a Rolls phono preamp, a cheap Chinese tube amp and some Panasonic speakers I can have a pretty decent entirely analog sound experience for short money. And no gold plated TOSLINK cables needed.

    42. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are 100% right on cover-art - I do miss that from the vinyl days - but it is ultimately about the music.

      Even cover art today is often harder to appreciate. Many are just obvious photoshops using well trodden techniques. There's some good stuff out there as well, but on average cover art has suffered. I suppose its hard to put a lot of effort into something that is often not even seen by the digital listener.

    43. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      You are kind of doing the same thing here - you're giving up the incredible advances in visual technology because of some of the secondary advantages... some of which you can still get with a modern TV.

      I have a Big Flat TV(tm). Yeah, takes a couple of seconds to turn on. Big deal. It has no smart functionality - and yes, there's a media center PC plugged into it (sometimes that's a Raspberry PI, but those are a bit unresponsive).

      As for the sound - no way will I let the TV handle the audio. Audio goes to the AV receiver and to real speakers. It did that even when the TV was a bigass CRT, because no TV has 5.1 surround.

      Did I make some sacrifices? Maybe. But the whole point of a TV is to have pretty pictures. If you don't think hidef is worth some minor sacrifices (which, as stated, you can mostly work around) then i's pretty obviously not an important medium for you... and you are definitely in the minority.

      And even you aren't claiming that the picture quality is better than hidef.

      (BTW I use a plasma TV, so blacks are still blacks).

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    44. Re:Oh for goodness sake by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there's some really crazy stuff out there. Wilson Audio is always a good for a laugh. The prices you mentioned are change compared to The WAMM Master Chronosonic speaker. I think they go for $700K/ pair.

      Remember those $1K Denon Ethernet cables? AudioQuest now has one that's $10K.

      But my all time favorite is still Machina Dynamica. Because taping a bag of $160 dollar rocks to your RCA cables is going to improve the sound. Or their $30 dollar outlet plate. The best one from them is a bargain at just $60. It's called the Teleportation Tweak. For $60 they improve your TV and audio system by playing 20 seconds of noise, over your phone.

    45. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      It can. But, again, vinyls can break, crack, scratch, be left in the sun, etc. That doesn't mean they will, and neither does a CD "have" to go bad. Like I said, I have CDs from 20 years and 3 continents ago that still work.

      Furthermore, I can make a 100% perfect copy of a CD I buy. So if I step on it, stomp it, microwave it and then run over it with my car, I still have a 100% perfect copy. Do that with vinyl.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    46. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      I remember my dad teaching me how to take the record out of the sleeve

      My first experience with a record was me picking up the sleeve, not realizing it was sideways, watching the record roll out, off the table, and smash on the floor. Immediately followed by my dad's forehead turning an unnatural shade of red, and me never touching his record collection again. I also have "fond" memories of walking to my car and finding my window smashed and my CD wallet with 100+ CDs missing.

      I realize that arguing any part of audio preference is like arguing religion, and LP lovers will call me a blasphemer, but physical media sucks. It was a shitty system when it came out, but it's what we could do with the technology we had. It served the purpose at the time, we have better stuff now.

      The only valid argument for physical media is the one you made. The tactile experience is just something you can't get with a digital download.

    47. Re: Oh for goodness sake by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      This. It's much more about being a tight trousered, beard oiled, elitist wanker than any sonic advantages.

    48. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0923/2946/products/Strawberry-Fluff-1024.jpg?v=1438206759

      Vomit bags sold separately.

    49. Re:Oh for goodness sake by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the audio upgrades to CDs came with new DRM systems, making them useless for tossing onto a MP3 player or into a car's audio head. The best media format out there (digital that is) would be 48/96 (or higher quality) in FLAC.

      LP is made for not just an audio experience. There is the large space for artwork, the physical medium, and the fact that it is a very simple thing that works fairly well.

      I would say each has different audiences, similar to having a DVD player, as well as going to a movie theater. Same movie, different type of experience.

    50. Re:Oh for goodness sake by thebullshitpatrol · · Score: 1

      Yeah! REAL music has crackles!

      This whole argument is fucking retarded. I buy LPs of my favorite albums because it's fun to have more collectable versions of them that I can hang on the wall. Digital music is objectively superior. If an album has a different master on vinyl, download a rip.

    51. Re:Oh for goodness sake by unapersson · · Score: 1

      I guess it just went underground for a while, a lot of the bands I listened to at the time were still releasing records on vinyl, and you had to go to record fairs or mail order rather than shops. And releases in that period now sell for a fortune.

      I think the internet is something that probably helped, taking that nascent mail order market and making it easier than ever. Discogs probably helped keep quite a few small businesses afloat.

      I don't really see it as competitive to the digital or CD marketplace, more an extensive of it enlarging the market as a whole.

    52. Re:Oh for goodness sake by tepples · · Score: 1

      Run the SACD player's analog out to a decent external ADC, dither down to 16-bit 44.1 kHz stereo, and compress that with FLAC.

    53. Re:Oh for goodness sake by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Don't laugh you guys - it's a wonderful business model. Sell two turntables a year, a couple of cables and some wooden knobs and you are literally golden.

      Makes even Apple look like flea market barrel scrapers.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    54. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry - Trump is here to turn back the clock. Coal mining will be king and he'll even outlaw abortion again.

    55. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Solandri · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's next? Let's all go back to watching movies on VHS and old CRTs!

      Actually, there was a short-lived drive to resurrect CRTs. You see, the ideal pixel isn't a square. It's a blob whose brightness falls off with radius, which is almost exactly what a CRT produces. The pixel is supposed to represent the brightness and color of an infinitely small sample at a certain location. A CRT phosphor's blob does that very well. When you represent it with a square LCD pixel, you're introducing a lot of high-frequency noise which doesn't exist in the original sample. In 2D imagery they're called jaggies, and we've had to implement anti-aliasing, especially in fonts, to remove that noise and make things look pretty much like they did on a CRT. LCDs only produce "sharper" output when displaying perfectly horizontal and vertical edges (like windows on a computer desktop) because in those cases the noise coincides with what's being represented. For all other shapes and angles, a CRT's pixels are better.

      The movement died when extremely high PPI LCDs became available - the high-frequency noise due to square pixels in those is too small to be visible.

    56. Re:Oh for goodness sake by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 0

      Millennials can not accept this. I have seen that they believe that what they consider to be good for themselves must be good for all mankind and anyone who disagrees can only be an idiot, even when this "idiot" has four times the age and experience of the millennial.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    57. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have over 400 pressed CDs, the majority of them dating from the late 1980s and the 1990s. I ripped them to flac a few years ago.
      About 390 ripped with no issues. 10 needed low speed multiple passes. Two had some tracks that won't rip. One is not recognized at all.

      If the coating was intact to start with and doesn't get damaged, they last indefinitely.

    58. Re:Oh for goodness sake by jcr · · Score: 2

      I know it started as a backlash over bad MP3 compression,

      Actually, it was a backlash against bad CD mastering. This was years before MP3 quality was an issue.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    59. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, the "crackles" and pops are due to DIRT and STATIC! If you CARE FOR your discs, and CLEAN THEM, you won't experience either! And your "objective superiority" goes out the window when CDs are mixed to sound good on crappy systems, have the loudness punched and have all kinds of distortion and clipping introduced.

    60. Re: Oh for goodness sake by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Newer technologies DO have a few quantifiable advantantages over CRTs: subpixel-addressability, and no convergence error.

      NOBODY circa 2000 thought LCD would EVER achieve the dominance it has today -- almost everyone in the display industry was betting on FED as "the next big thing" (FED is basically a CRT that's directly-illuminated at the subpixel level by an array of solid-state electron emitters sitting behind them). The problem with FED was dead pixels... they were as seemingly-unavoidable with FED as they were with TFT. Ultimately, LCD manufacturers solved the problem first. The reality, though, is that the same technology that now gives us LCDs without dead/stuck pixels could give us FED, too. FED has one problem, though: it uses as much power AS a CRT, so it's not really viable for laptops, phones, etc. OLED basically gives us everything FED could, with the added bonus of (relatively) low power consumption. Even in the early 90s, FED's creators knew LED was the future... it's just that back then, blue LEDs were still a lab & prototype novelty, so they came up with the idea of using a LED-like electron emitter to excite blue phosphors.

      Regardless of whether FED still has a future or we go straight to OLED, LCDs *suck* compared to both.

    61. Re:Oh for goodness sake by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Its also true that ridding a horse is only similar in terms of experience to ridding in a car in that you are moving thru space! Its not really the same thing at all. Playing a record after than few seconds spent placing it on the turn table and dropping the needle is almost exactly like playing a CD! You sit and listen, oh except with CD you don't have to avoid jumping around and dancing to the music in fear of permanently harming the record if it skips, there is that.

      A better question is when was the last time you saw anyone traveling by horse drawn coach even for fun? That would better comparable. Yes I am aware people take the occasional sleigh or buggy ride but that is pretty small number of people, many of whom do it just to satisfy the curiosity about what life used to be like and may not ever do it again afterward. Is anybody buying these records expecting to play them only once?

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    62. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever LISTENED to a Wilson Audio setup? I have. I still can't afford one...but I understand why people who CAN will spend that kind of money for them! With turntables especially, it's an excercise in precision engineering and manufacturing. Better sound means INCREDIBLY tight tolerances on mechanical parts. ANY kind of vibration is bad for playback, so the more isolated the platter is, the better the sound!

      While I will never spend $20k+ for a turntable...I AM planning on buying the almost infinitely upgradable Linn Sondek LP-12. This turntable has been in production since 1971 and any of them can be fully upgraded to modern specs. They START around $3000. But it's money well spent if you are into your music!

    63. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You can get "dumb" LCD TVs, I got one about 2 years ago, 50 odd inch. Since the hi-fi is underneath it, it's straightforward to route the audio through something with better speakers. It turns on far quicker than my old (and much beloved at the time) Trinitron display, no tube to warm up - sub 1 second startup. The picture quality is so much better than the Trinitron it's like night and day.

    64. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My reasons for buying vinyl. 1. I could by a used record for a $1 when I was a teenager, CDs were $15-18. 2. I enjoy the artwork. 3. It's a way for me to get more of my money to the artist.

    65. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to burst your bubble but CD's from the late 80's early 90's do die.

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

    66. Re:Oh for goodness sake by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      This obsession with obsolete and empirically inferior technology is baffling.

      "Empirically inferior"? If I can accept that a vinyl LP may not sound as good as the same CD on the same soundsystem, but I choose to buy records anyway, how do you support your claim? Apparently I still have some reason to buy them. What is it?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    67. Re:Oh for goodness sake by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      That's why I still pay for a streaming service. Pretty much all vinyl comes with download cards so you can have a digital version. (Some stick a CD in the sleeve, though.)

    68. Re:Oh for goodness sake by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      I really missed the artwork when I started ripping DVD-As. So now when I get a new DVD-A I go through a lengthy process to dig out the artwork out of the DVD-V portion and actually make a video with it. Works well for most DVD-As, but the Flaming Lips releases had a very different setup for the DVD-V version, and there's no way to go back and get the artwork unless you have a physical DVD-A player.

    69. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      (Some stick a CD in the sleeve, though.)

      Makes perfect sense. I know a decade or so ago it cost about 25cents to make a music CD. I can only imagine that cost is even lower today- sounds a fantastic way to get people to buy who might otherwise be on the fence.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    70. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure how you prove perception, but I'll tell you this. I have many recordings on both vinyl and CD. I have a stereo system that is component based. Not insanely expensive but not cheap either (about 20k all together). I can tell the difference straight away on almost every comparison. The compression on CDs is horrible, and then the level of detail is lacking as well.

    71. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      Too be honest, I wouldn't mind going back to a CRT (except for the size and weight problems) so I could get rid of all the bad artifacting in highly compressed video. Maybe 16k video will fix this but at this point some of the digital video out there is terrible.

      Not sure how leaded gasoline got mixed into a discussion on digital vs analogue. 8-)

    72. Re:Oh for goodness sake by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know it started as a backlash over bad MP3 compression

      Not even close. Digital masters were being ruined long before MP3s hit the scene.

      All you vinyl obsessed people are making things worse, not better.

      Vinyl sounds better. No not the medium, but the masters. You should thank the popularity of vinyl. Maybe at some point the record industry will take note that people are actually willing to pay for a product that sounds like it was mastered correctly rather than something which sounds like it was run through a compressor manufacturers by a steamrolling company.

      Let's all go back to watching movies on VHS and old CRTs! It's how the director wanted it to be seen, right?

      I can't remember who to attribute the quote to (Alan Parsons?) but paraphrasing it was something like: "Now they have their shitty CD I can mix the record my way." So yes.

      It pays to actually have a clue about the reason people prefer something along with a history of the industry before posting.

    73. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You joke, but I can hear the difference when a cable is pugged in backwards. All manufactures should be mandated to place direction arrows on their cables. You also can't understate the need to have clean electricity coming into the amp. If the electrons in the cord from the outlet to the amp are not aligned, you get jitters that degrade the audio quality.

    74. Re:Oh for goodness sake by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      That stylus going over the record each time you play it? Yeah, that's degrading the signal. Every. Single. Time.

      But only minimally so, unless you have a pretty crappy turntable, or one that's improperly aligned. The wear and tear on cassette tapes from playing them is greater than the wear and tear on records.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    75. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...even when this "idiot" has four times the age and experience of the millennial.

      At 80-100 years old, the idiot probably can't hear anymore anyway!

    76. Re:Oh for goodness sake by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Have you ever LISTENED to a Wilson Audio setup?

      Yes, and they do sound fantastic. But you can get that level of sound quality for much less money.

      I have. I still can't afford one...but I understand why people who CAN will spend that kind of money for them!

      Small penis?

      While I will never spend $20k+ for a turntable...I AM planning on buying the almost infinitely upgradable Linn Sondek LP-12. This turntable has been in production since 1971 and any of them can be fully upgraded to modern specs. They START around $3000. But it's money well spent if you are into your music!

      I've had my current turntable for around 20 years now, but I probably spent about half of your price for the Linn. Not sure how much that is when adjusted for inflation. While there is certainly a huge difference in mass market equipment versus the boutique brands. There is also a a point of diminishing returns. Is a $20K pair of speakers four times better than a $5K pair? Or a $700K pair 35 times better than a $20K set?

    77. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      I have two CDs that I bought. I guess those were small production runs or something, but those CDs are actually CD-Rs. One is completely unreadable now, the other has problems with some tracks. Thankfully, for the first one, I also have a cassette, that works fine.

    78. Re: Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get them that cheap, yes. They are poor quality discs. They also come with a limited printing choice and a paper cover. They are, in bulk, about three bucks for quality, good printing, and a jewel case.

      Again, I am the same AC musician who posted above. Plan on about four or five bucks for quality and a run of less than ten thousand with a good turn around time. There's some leeway there.

    79. Re: Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The alternative medium we are discussing is not cassette tapes.

    80. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      To me, physical media is more convenient when used in a car etc. I select a few tapes or MDs to take when driving somewhere further away, then listen to them while driving. Out of that small set, I can choose the next tape very quickly and without taking both eyes off the road. If I had half my music collection on a single medium, I would have to go trough menus to select the next album to play or would have to memorize a lot of track numbers.

      Also, I already have a lot of cassettes. Recording them all to digital storage would take a long time and would not necessarily be more convenient after that.

    81. Re: Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see horses and buggies ridden for fun, quite often. I even see sleighs.

      Err...

      They are not mine. My neighbor's farm boards horses and four of the boarders use buggies, wagons, and sleighs.

      This has no bearing on your point, however. In fact, I am just the same musician AC that posted a few times above. I just wanted to share that I see them with alarming frequency. In the summer, I slow down because there is a surprisingly good chance that there is one in the road. It's not even Amish territory.

    82. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I can quite confidently state that the very first CDs I ever bought still work 100% with no issues. So I can't understand the claim of CDs dying in 15 years.

      The CD of old was produced by making dimples in an aluminum layer. It is very hard for such dimples to just disappear.

      Modern CDs, for the most part, are CD-R. They are made by bleaching a photosensitive dye to create bits, using a laser. This is a chemical reaction. Excess heat, and even just time, can cause the unbleached dye to fade.

      Yes, when someone is making 100,000 copies, it pays to send the ISO off to a CD foundry and have them pressed the old way. When you're backing up your computer, or making a mix-CD, only a fool uses anything but the -R version.

      Old CDs are safe for a very long time. Modern ones are relatively short-lived. Learning to trust CDs based on aluminum ones and then expecting dye-based CD-R to live so long is a recipe for disaster.

    83. Re: Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poe's Law is in play, unfortunately.

    84. Re:Oh for goodness sake by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but back then lots of care was put into making a quality recording for CD because only audiophiles were buying them. Today the care is going into vinyl for the same reason.

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    85. Re:Oh for goodness sake by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      The SACD however probably sounded better due to the very same reason that these new Vinyl releases sounds better than the CD releases; better mastering. E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran performed tests back in 2007 for the "JAES 55(9) September 2007" where they via a ABX switch played either the SACD/DVD-A high resolution disc directly for A and then feed it thorugh a 16-bit 44.1Khz ADC -> DAC loop for B and the result was:

      Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

    86. Re:Oh for goodness sake by F.Ultra · · Score: 2

      And you get to funny situations like this where a console game sounds better than the CD due to shitty mastering of the CD: https://mastering-media.blogsp...

    87. Re:Oh for goodness sake by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      The CDs have to have some production quality issues for that to happen, i.e the plastic sheeting have to leak air into the aluminum layer or there where air locked in there during manufacturing. It occurred more often on DVDs due to their dual layers making the discs slightly harder to manufacture in this regard. I have CDs that is over 27 years old and have yet to see any rot in any of them.

    88. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Please let me know the quality of the audio from something you picked up for 50 cents. Tell me that it's not scratched all to hell and back, and see if I believe you.

      Like I said, SACD died out. It's a superior technology, but it's gone. So it's an unfair comparison. However, you can probably pick up a CD at a garage sale/thrift store, too... and it will sound just as good as the day it was originally purchased.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    89. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      These are the times I'm kind of mad at myself for not being a millionaire off peoples' gullibility.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    90. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      And like I said (in other comments?) any physical media I get is immediately ripped to a lossless format and saved on the media server (and backed up elsewhere). Then the physical media goes in a box.

      Except for SACD where you can't do that.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    91. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Go ahead and make a perfect copy of your LP. You can't. Built-in DRM.

      I've never had a problem getting audio off a CD. Even with SACD it is still possible, though difficult (and should that medium have become popular, no doubt that would've been easy, too).

      I'd say comparing this to "DVD player" vs "Movie" is a bit off - that's like saying "CD Player" vs "Live concert".

      This is Blu-Ray vs VHS.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    92. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      I absolutely refuse to make an analogue copy of this. Plus I'd have to do all 6 channels.

      What actually bugs me is I have an SACD player that can output a PCM stream over HDMI. So I should be able to plug that HDMI into something and capture the PCM stream. But I've not find a reasonably priced consumer device that can do that. Full HD video? Sure. But it'll downmix to stereo!

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    93. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      That hardly made an impact. Vinyl was still dying when the loudness wars happened.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    94. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      > A better question is when was the last time you saw anyone traveling by horse drawn coach even for fun?

      Actually, I know someone who rode her horse to the renaissance festival. Her and her friend, actually.

      They got into a lot of trouble, too.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    95. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm not saying that never happens. I'm saying it doesn't always happen, and if you're using this argument but still claiming vinyl doesn't get damaged over time, I think you're the one in the bubble.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    96. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 2

      1. Vinyl degrades with every usage.
      2. Vinyl can't reproduce the same range as CDs.
      3. It is virtually impossible to get all the dust off your vinyl record before playing.
      4. Vinyl can hold much less audio than CDs.
      5. Vinyl is much less portable than CD.
      6. Vinyl is less flexible (from a technology point of view) than CD, and the CD form-factor.

      And that's off the top of my head.

      How would I know your reasons? I said it's an inferior technology, not that I have ESP.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    97. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      I solved this by turning the TV off while listening to music (:

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    98. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      When I said CRTs, I really should've said SD rather than HD. Yeah, CRTs have advantages. But as someone who had a widescreen 30" CRT at some point and had to move it on his own, I'm pretty happy to be rid of them!

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    99. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      You are neglecting to accept that technology does improve.

      Yes, vinyl was good at the time. Yes, vinyl meant better quality masters for stuff. But vinyl can't actually reproduce the quality of the masters, and we had no technology at the time that could. Now we do, and we have for decades.

      Take Brothers in Arms by Dire Straits. I mentioned to someone that the SACD remaster of it was phenomenal and got a derisive "Ugh, it sounds better on vinyl" because "that's what the artist wanted". That album was produced -- by the artist -- specifically to take advantage of the newly-available CD format.

      If you're going to argue that "some CDs are mastered badly" - yes, of course some are. So are some vinyls. That's not a limit of the medium, that's people doing stupid things.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    100. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      > But only minimally so,

      And you only listen to your records minimally?

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    101. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      > The SACD however probably sounded better due to the very same reason that these new Vinyl releases sounds better than the CD releases; better mastering.

      Nope.

      I mean, that's part of it, but no. Vinyl just doesn't have the resolution SACD has. Neither do CDs. Most SACDs came with dual layers - they'd play as CDs in a regular CD player, and as SACD in an SACD player, so you could compare. Yeah, the CD layer was usually really, really well-mastered, but the SACD layer? Mind-blowingly clear. I compare it to going from SD to HD, except with audio. This isn't just about mastering. There is literally more detail there.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    102. Re:Oh for goodness sake by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      I've got that one, too, and it also is amazing. Precisely *because* it was early great care was taken in it's creation. By the mid 90s almost all CDs were crap. Not because of CDs; because of slapdash work.

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    103. Re:Oh for goodness sake by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Can't separate seeds on a paper copy.

      Haven't seen pot with seeds since just after switching to CDs.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    104. Re:Oh for goodness sake by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You know the two important components on a turntable based setup?

      Phono cartridge and speakers. Nothing else matters until you get those _right_. Any direct drive turntable was as good as it's phono cartridge, but no better.

      A good cartridge cost far more than most consumer turntables. But so long as the turntable had enough rotating mass, strobe based speed adjustment and you didn't turn the speakers up to feedback it sounded as good as any turntable once you put the nice moving coil cartridge in.

      After cartridge and speakers you spend money on amp/preamp.

      These days 99% of idiots buying vinyl, play it on utter crap USB turntables.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    105. Re:Oh for goodness sake by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Any direct drive turntable was as good as it's phono cartridge

      Most high end turntables are belt driven. Direct drive is generally more of a DJ thing than high end home table. Direct drive has advantages to be sure, but I don't recall the last time I saw a direct drive that addressed the drawback of isolating motor noise. That may have changed in recent times as I've not been in the market for a new one.

    106. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they should have done instead of SACD is make plain old DVD audio universal, and ALL optical decks capable of reading both CD and DVD.

      I would love to be able to pop in a high-quality album OR a movie to listen to in my home or car stereo DVD deck. It would not have been difficult to define such a standard.

    107. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      > What they should have done instead of SACD is make plain old DVD audio universal, and ALL optical decks capable of reading both CD and DVD.

      They did. It was called DVD-A. Worked on any DVD player. Obviously not a CD player, but if that had become popular they'd probably have added that functionality.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    108. Re:Oh for goodness sake by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Motor noise? How is that more of a problem with DD vs belt? Belt drive uses a higher RPM motor.

      It's not like there are any active circuits in the signal path in the turntable and it's not like the motors are high torque monsters. Shield the motor and the cartridge and you're done. Which you have to do anyhow, 60Hz buzzes suck.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    109. Re:Oh for goodness sake by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      Depending on how much you want to spend, it may be easier to just find a compatible Playstation 3 (or troll Craigslist or the like for someone who has one and would be willing to help you out). Better to properly rip it than to try to capture it.

    110. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      I looked into that. Those are insanely rare. And expensive (: I'll just be careful for now. Or look into how to convert DFF files to something useful again (:

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    111. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      I bought a plasma TV too, but its blacks are much worse than any of the CRT TVs and monitors I have. When a CRT is displaying black, it looks like the device is off, while I would never mistake my TV displaying black and being off (though it does turn off if you give it a full black picture, but place a tiny dot in it and the whole picture becomes gray). I read that there is a way to fix it by adjusting the power supply voltages, I have yet to try it though, the warranty has expired recently, so I will probably try this.

      OTOH, this big 10cm TV is better than my previous 82cm HD ready CRT. Analog SD sources like Laserdisc or VHS also look good. Except for dark scenes in movies. Watching it in the dark makes the lack of proper black level very apparent. Watching it with lights on makes it annoying because the screen is so reflective.

      In addition, it has quite high input lag if I enable any of the video features (or just set the video mode to anything except "game" and sometimes even "game" mode has lag), I solved this with an audio delay. Delaying audio for 240ms makes the image sync up.

    112. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      I really hope that's a 100cm TV (:

      I've not had much of a "that's not black enough" problem. Maybe because I never watch TV in complete darkness. Nor have I had any audio sync issues that weren't due to a bad video file... but I don't let the TV handle the audio. ...and I need to start researching 4K sets...

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    113. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite, that's backwards from what I meant-- that all DVD players should have been made DVD-A compatible, not that DVD-A should be made backward-compatible with existing players.

    114. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      150cm :)

      As for input lag, for me, if I set a non-game mode, it is severely noticeable even when moving the mouse (bad enough to make it difficult to click on a button). It also is present when watching an analog source. Enabling game mode removes most of it, however, other modes allow for better picture quality, hence the audio delay device.

      To me this set will be good enough, I guess by the time it breaks beyond my capability of repair, flat OLED sets will be affordable or I'll buy a projector.

    115. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't just about mastering. There is literally more detail there.

      Oh rly?

    116. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuts. Same AC here... I didn't realize that article is talking about the same study mentioned by F.Ultra.

      Redundancy aside, it does show that on the evidence, SACD/DVD-A sounds better because of better signal, not a better medium.

    117. Re:Oh for goodness sake by houghi · · Score: 1

      High-quality audio is the niche becquse the mqjority of people qre not interested in it. They want to have background noise or drone out the other sounds or just don't want to be silent.

      The minority of people does not care and most likely will not hear the difference. People go to pubs and rock concerts to listen to music. They seldom do that to listen to the high sound quqlity. They do that because they like the total experience.

      And yes I know that that many horses where a bad thing. Does not mean that people can not enjoy it. Just as you enjoy high quality music. Good for you. Me? I don't care, just like the majority of people do not really care for quality.
      People who like vinyl like that experience, so why not. There might be some exceptions, but I doubt that the vinyl is anywhere pushing away anything digital. Sure, there might be some that have some music only as an overpriced collectors item.
      Virtually all who use vinyl do so withot disturbing any other means.
      And it is a pity you stopped at 128bit NP3 and not included lossless.
      Also that you including vinyl twice is not correct. It never went away. It just has a new target audience, just like horses.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    118. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      I'd never seen a DVD player that couldn't play DVD-A.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    119. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      I've been saying my next TV will be a projector for a decade, but it just never happens (price/capabilities never end up matching).

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    120. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Yes, rly. Even according to the link you just sent. That "study" claims people can't tell the difference, not that the difference doesn't exist.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    121. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get that, the problem is that people dont typically listen to music on their DVD players.

      The current situation is as if people said "cassettes sound like crap" so the AV manufacturers made a cassette adapter to play cassettes on your hi-fi VCR.

    122. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so obviously you could tell the difference, where dozens of test subjects can't.

      I'd be willing to bet the "mind-blowingly clear" SACD layer would sound the same to you through that 44.1kHz/16-bit bottleneck.

    123. Re:Oh for goodness sake by F.Ultra · · Score: 2

      The main problem with SACD is that the idiotic design that it uses (DSD) means that it has extremely high resolution where it does not matter (in the lower frequencies) while the resolution deteriorates as the frequency gets higher while a PCM format have equal resolution throughout the entire frequency range. The 16-bits, 44.2Khz sampling rate of the CD is enough to reproduce with 100% accuracy any source signal that is in the 0-22.1Khz range. The only thing that SACD gives you here is that it can reproduce higher frequencies (up to roughly 50Khz before the limits of the DSD kicks in) and that the dynamic range is increased from 96dB to 120dB, I have a really hard time understanding the need for that though in regards to music play back.

      This is also why there to this date have yet not been a single Double Blinded ABX Test where people could distinguish between a SACD/DVD-A source and the same source sampled to 16-bits 44.2Khz and played back again.

    124. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Remember the arcade games? I believe that was progressive-scan, what we might now called 240p at 60Hz, with the RGB signal coming straight from the little computer buried in the cabinet.

      It looked damn fine. You should have seen European SNES + TV with the RGB cable, on a good but otherwise unremarkable TV (ditto SNES/Genesis, and even the Dreamcast), it's much of what I grew up with.
      SD TV was plagued by broadcasting standards and crap like connections like composite PAL. Even digital SDTV stuff on MPEG2, with the box or player thing plugged in composite PAL was fairly garbage compared to what the displays could possibly do.

      In what will forever be a thought experiment.. a widescreen CRT TV might support 480p (possibly 576p. possibly 540p), i.e. without the interlacing. Simply scan the video multiple times so the refresh is 120Hz, 100Hz or even 96Hz for movies. Support legacy inputs if you wish (composite, SCART etc.) but have a HDMI input! Ideally, play some H264, VP8, H265, VP9 video as the source for your TV. (might end up downscaling some 1080i/p to 480p internally, don't care)
      This would not even be entirely unheard of, 16:9 480p existed as "EDTV" although it was used on plasma and LCD I think. Also, 480p 16:9 is rampant on youtube and elsewhere.

      On a grumpy note, I wish there were 480p 60fps content available on the web. No, I don't always have the bandwith for 720p60 and 1080p60 (and if I do, it stutters due to the stupid CPU requirements)

    125. Re:Oh for goodness sake by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You are neglecting to accept that technology does improve.

      You completely and utterly missed my point.

      Now let me sell you fibre internet but speed limited to 56kbps. Will you say OMG the technology is so much better, please sir may I have another? Or will you approach this offer like the point of my post, with your wallet buying some outdated technology that is none the less better for you to prove a point to the masters of the new technology that they aren't producing the best thing possible?

      If you're going to argue that "some CDs are mastered badly" - yes, of course some are.

      No. I'm going to argue that 99.99% of CDs are mastered badly. Not some, not a few, but the overwhelming majority of popular music sold.

      So are some vinyls. That's not a limit of the medium, that's people doing stupid things.

      There were poorly mastered vinyls, but the current industry trend is by far that the record industry doesn't give a shit about what happens to the vinyl resulting in a mix that is vastly superior to the modern technology. But hey you don't need to take my word for it, take the underground bootlegging industry which seems to have made a little side industry for digital copies of the vinyls, or any source for better quality music (like the guys who went to the effort to rip out the tracks from the Guitar Hero Metalica because they were mastered far better than either CD or vinyl release.

      In the meantime I'm going to put my money on the best sounding result, not the latest and greatest technology because quite frankly I couldn't care what technology I use.

      And the Brothers in Arms SACD is phenominal, and the person who replied to you is brain dead, that doesn't change my point on the industry trend itself. Mind you so is the Dark Side of the Moon SACD though that only seems to actually match and not beat the Mobile Fidelity release of the same album.

    126. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      And, again, if the medium would have become popular, no doubt it'd have been incorporated into anything that plays optical discs of that form-factor.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    127. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Go ahead and set it up.

      I guaranty I'd notice the 5.1 surround sound over plain stereo, though.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    128. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, again, if they had incorporated support into anything that plays optical discs of that form-factor, the medium might have become popular. :)

    129. Re:Oh for goodness sake by Jethro · · Score: 1

      How do you incorporate support for something that doesn't exist yet? That's like complaining that regular DVD players can't play Blu-Ray!

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    130. Re:Oh for goodness sake by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      I haven't been in the market for decades, but I can recall when direct drive was replacing belt drive on high end, home turntables. Did things change?

  6. any improvements on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any improvements on vinyl's serios deficiencies? Surface noise? Channel separation? Frequency response consistency between outside and inside grooves? Need for tracking compensation?

    1. Re:any improvements on.. by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

      Laser record players takes care of most of that.

    2. Re:any improvements on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean besides the 40 year old DBX system?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qtxPSR8q98

      And yet, all these "deficiencies" pale in comparison to the speakers.

    3. Re:any improvements on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they don't.

  7. What's the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing will undo the terrible mastering job that's done with mp3 compression and cheap in-ear headphones in mind.

  8. Delay by doconnor · · Score: 2

    I would have assumed to delay was to encourage people to buy albums twice, once they they can get it right away and then again to fulfill there irrational desire to the reto.

  9. Light on details by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Is this some sort of DMM system?

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  10. Mixes by DrYak · · Score: 1

    dacs can do 24/192k and even DSD.

    Which we aren't physiologically equipped(*) to be able to enjoy any way.

    (*): Except to hear the hearing-range ( < ~10-15kHz ) distortions that are caused by throwing ultra-sonics (192kHz sampling means up to 96kHz frequencies) at a setup that was never meant for it.

    the ONLY valid reason is that the mix is intentionally different, which makes zero sense.

    It does make a sense commercially.
    If your mix looks like a set of solid bars constantly locked to the top on the spectrum of your radio/CD-player, it "sounds" subjectively louder and attracts more the attention.
    And when you're in the market of selling CDs, you *DO* want to attract the attention of customer to these CDs that you are selling.

    LP are marketed to audio snobs who'll be more attracted to the "less loud"/more natural mix. You don't try to attract them with loudness, you attract them with the fact that it IS an LP and with the less shitty mix.

    So yeah, the mix found in commercial CDs and files is much shittier to what you can find on LP (even if the technological limitations are actually the opposite), but that's because that's the mix with which you're the most likely to attract suckers to whom to sell those shitty mix.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Mixes by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Except to hear the hearing-range ( The point of high sampling frequencies is that you can then filter out any unwanted distortions in an easy way.

  11. the wonder of nostalgia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew a guy that swore he could tell the difference between digital and analog playback. Bullsh?t. Human hearing has limits imposed by evolution. Just as our eyes have limits imposed by evolution. Haven't you wondered why you don't see in the infrared range? You are radiating heat; seeing yourself as a blinding light in the dark is not a good survival characteristic. The environment we operate in, the range of sound that might protect our asses, is what we hear. Evolution favors survival not dilatant characteristics.
    Digital music uses 10 times the nyquist rate; better than a human ear can hear and distinguish. That is why it was picked. Economics were a reasonable factor.
    What is even funnier? Analog playback i.e. vinyl is produced from digital recordings. Do you think a modern studio uses tapes to record a session? They have a harddrive. Think about it. I record in digital then press or 'record' on vinyl for 'analog quality' and somehow that is better? The plastic press changes the digital reproduction into something better? It's not a James Pollock work.
    Silly buggers wasting their money on silly technology. Oh, by the way they want belt driven over direct drive turntables and diamond tip needles which need replacing after a hundred uses. Really diamond wearing down on vinyl ... it goes on. Irrational behavior. Humans have so many irrational behaviors.

    1. Re:the wonder of nostalgia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Digital music uses 10 times the nyquist rate; better than a human ear can hear and distinguish.

      What you just said makes no sense.

    2. Re: the wonder of nostalgia by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      > Digital music uses 10 times the nyquist rate; better than a human ear can hear and distinguish

      192,000hz sample rates are about 10x, but 44,100hz is barely more than the Nyquist minimum.

      Nyquist is a MINIMUM. The only thing Nyquist GUARANTEES is that a 44.1khz sample rate is INADEQUATE for reproducing frequencies above 22.05khz. It makes no claim that it's actually good enough for flawless reproduction.

      Also, 192khz sample rates are really more like 96khz if you're attempting to mix two streams in realtime due to clock jitter (unless all live streams share an accurate clock signal that compensates for cable length and the speed of light, the bytes won't precisely align).

      That said, 24-bit/channel at 192khz is definitely past any point where double-blind listeners could distinguish between live (but non-class-D-amplified) and digital.

    3. Re: the wonder of nostalgia by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Nyquist is a MINIMUM. The only thing Nyquist GUARANTEES is that a 44.1khz sample rate is INADEQUATE for reproducing frequencies above 22.05khz. It makes no claim that it's actually good enough for flawless reproduction.

      Wrong. According to the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, a 44.1 kHz sample rate can perfectly reproduce analog signals that are bandwidth limited to a range between 0 and 22.05 kHz.

    4. Re: the wonder of nostalgia by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      But the Nyquist is worded that way because that is how Science works. You cannot scientifically claim that there will never be any differences because with a better test they might be detected but you can claim that if you do not fulfil the requirements (i.e double the Nyquist frequency) there will be differences because those existing differences can be measured.

    5. Re: the wonder of nostalgia by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      According to the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, a 44.1 kHz sample rate can perfectly reproduce analog signals that are bandwidth limited to a range between 0 and 22.05 kHz.

      Frequency is only part of it. Try getting flawless reproduction of a 1kHz 2mV P-P sine wave using a 5V 10 bit ADC no matter what your sampling frequency is.

  12. Only some genres by xororand · · Score: 2

    The loudness war mostly affects pop genres like Rap and Rock.
    Classical and Jazz recordings generally don't suffer the same fate.

  13. Analog DRM by DrYak · · Score: 1

    "Digital" rights management, idiot.

    ...which entirely doable for an analog medium, and would be probably the way they'll do it if they decide to add DRM to analog mediums.

    e.g.:
    - Audio tapes and vinyls come with a printed code on a label.
    - (let's say a QR-Code on the side of the tape, and a barcode around the edge of the round label in the middle of the vinyl)
    - that code is read by the player
    - (a small cheap webcam aligned inside the tape-deck exactly where the QR-Code would line once the tape is loaded ; a laser picking up the barcode as the vinyl spins around)
    - step one : analog player will refuse to play an analog medium whose code it can't check the signature.
    - (similar to how lock-out chips where used in game cartridges. Medium can still play as-is in old school players, but your lobbyist can vote a law to tax them)
    - step two : in addition to that, the code contain an encrypted parameter that controls some form of analog encryption (like the Nagravision that was used in the past with analog TV channels. It basically just flips/shifts the frequencies of the spectrum around)

    (And it's the perfect parallel to the way DRM disturbs user experience :
    - analog audio encryption can be annoying to users (just like DRM region lock-out, or HDCP buggy drops can be annoying) because the wrapped frequencies might be less optimally conveyed by the analog medium (specially on Vinyls, a little bit less on tapes where the audio is modulated anyway) though you can still market your scheme as shifting the frequencies around to better positions.
    - analog audio encryption is just as useless as DVD's CSS because it can easily be broken and decrypted. And in fact *was* back in the nagravision days).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  14. distortion adds uniqueness by kiviQr · · Score: 1

    What you call distortion is for some people a huge benefit it adds uniqueness to sound and it is valued by a lot of people. MP3 just lowers the quality which is different. You cannot recreate the experience of 60s with SACD or DVD-A.

    1. Re:distortion adds uniqueness by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      MP3 just lowers the quality which is different.

      I don't disagree with your statement that MP3 lowers the quality. That is objectively true if you compare it with an uncompressed or loss free representation at the same sample rate and bit precision.

      You need to be honest though that elements of the process which add 'distortion' to creation and playback of vinyl also just lower the quality compared to say the original analog master tapes (which by the way probably don't exist anymore I betcha almost all recording studios are using digital masters today). That uniqueness it adds is not different than the distortion an mp3 encoder adds other than you happen to like it better, that is a subjective opinion on your part by the way. I know other people that claim to like 'mp3 warble' (I think they are misguided just like you).

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re: distortion adds uniqueness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lossless or lossyless are the terms used in the studio. I am not an engineer. I am the same AC musician who posted up thread, however.

    3. Re:distortion adds uniqueness by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      You have to expect, though, that in 30 years a bunch of hipsters will be on about how great mp3s were.

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

  15. Vinly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Vinly is for queers. Unless it's a Vinly of Trump. Then it's for Putin.

  16. Slow supply chain no surprise by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Ever wondered why you sometimes have to wait months after an album's launch to get the music on vinyl?

    Nope. It's absurdly obvious. Why would they go to the trouble of building the infrastructure to mass product quickly a niche product that won't sell a huge number of copies? I literally know of no one who actually listens to vinyl records anymore. The only people I know who even own turntables are people in the baby boomer generation. I'm confident most people reading this also don't know many people who listen to vinyl if they know any at all. Manufacturing takes time and there has to be enough demand to build the supply chain if you want it done fast. As the saying goes you can have it fast, cheap, or good. Pick two. There simply hasn't been enough demand for vinyl records to justify upgrading the manufacturing supply chain from where it was before CDs became a thing.

    1. Re:Slow supply chain no surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Painfully obvious you are indeed talking out of your ass here! There are PLENTY of people listening to vinyl! In the UK, revenue from vinyl has now surpassed revenue from STREAMING! I myself am a "Gen Xer" NOT a boomer, and I value the experience I get from playing vinyl at home...and I have also invested a considerable amount in my stereo system.

      If you are playing dirty records on a $100 turntable, with $100 speakers, you are not getting the proper result. If you invest a few thousand into a system, THEN you can speak intelligently to the differences in formats, or debate analog vs. digital. Until you do, do yourself a favor and keep your mouth shut. Your ignorance is palpable!

    2. Re:Slow supply chain no surprise by TWX · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that one has to spend a few thousand dollars to match the experience of putting a CD into a consumer-grade CD player?

      And if you do bother responding, yes, I'm well aware of the design compromises that were made when the Compact Disc format was created. 44kHz is lower than what can be achieved by the most high-end record players. I maintain that an average component CD player will produce better sound than 99.9% of vinyl record players ever made. It'll probably produce better than 99.9% of record players made within the high fidelity era.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Slow supply chain no surprise by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      A few thousand dollars, nope. But perhaps $200 for the left speaker, $200 for the right speaker, $100 for the amp and cables etc., $1 worth of speaker cable. Costlier of all, a nice big room and moving furniture around etc.

      Then we can compare : cheap ass CD player or beat up PC from 1999 with a cheap sound card or DAC ($30).
      For vinyl, you need a turn table, a needle, a pre-amp - the pre-amp can be built into anything : turn table, dj mixer, hifi amplifier, standalone. Perhaps $300/$400 total cost for cheap stuff? (up from $100 piece of crap that will damage the discs)

      I think "good enough" might be affordable like that. But for the cost of a turntable and stuff you can get a high quality desktop PC (like, gold rated PSU, 110dB S/N ratio sound card and the latest 3GHz dual core) or consumer items like high end smartphone, TV, latest console. Or back up hard drives to not lose your music and crap.
      I guess the value is to do stuff without needing a fucking computer. Even CD players are small single purpose computers, although they may count as non computer if you wish.
      Even some millenials appreciate time away from computers.

  17. If only there was some way to avoid this problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yes, buy the album as a download or a CD. The sound quality is better either way. Vinyl is only sold because there are fools out there who'll pay a premium for an inferior, less convenient, mostly dead format.

  18. Weird arguments by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Cover art: Vinyl is the best way to deliver large scale artwork

    The "best" way to deliver art work (that almost no one gives a shit about and is largely orthogonal to the music experience) is to put it on an obsolete and fragile storage medium that no one buys or wants? How about just making a print on paper instead? It's the same art work either way. Not like you are buying the original work.

    But that's not the point, the point is to have a physical recording of music that I love that'll still work when we can no longer play our DVD-As and CDs, and to be able to appreciate the printed artwork.

    We'll have the ability to play CDs for just as long as we have the ability to play vinyl records. And the artwork isn't any better just because you print it on a larger piece of cardboard.

    1. Re:Weird arguments by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      And the artwork isn't any better just because you print it on a larger piece of cardboard.

      But that is not an empirically true statement, is it?

      In addition to the larger artwork, I also enjoy having albums divided up into two or more sides, each with its own unique track listing. Believe it or not, songs don't play in the order they do just at random.

      I also enjoy the various ways vinyl itself can be presented ... colors, swirls, etchings, holograms, etc. Much better than a silk-screened picture on one side of a piece of plastic.

      I like the act of physically handling the records, pulling them in and out of sleeves, flipping them over, and so forth. Much more enjoyable than opening a tray and dropping a CD in ... or just pushing a couple of buttons.

      To me, playing records is an enjoyable activity. Firing up some MP3s, on the other hand, feels like an afterthought. It's just background noise.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Weird arguments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't seen the artwork included with the albums I buy, A lot of times it's is more than just a picture that can be printed on paper.

    3. Re:Weird arguments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cover art: Vinyl is the best way to deliver large scale artwork

      The "best" way to deliver art work (that almost no one gives a shit about and is largely orthogonal to the music experience) is to put it on an obsolete and fragile storage medium that no one buys or wants? How about just making a print on paper instead? It's the same art work either way. Not like you are buying the original work.

      Good luck finding 12" wide paper!

      But that's not the point, the point is to have a physical recording of music that I love that'll still work when we can no longer play our DVD-As and CDs, and to be able to appreciate the printed artwork.

      We'll have the ability to play CDs for just as long as we have the ability to play vinyl records. And the artwork isn't any better just because you print it on a larger piece of cardboard.

      There is a lot of evidence that analogue recordings last longer and are more recoverable then digital works.

  19. DJ's Opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I grew up on cassette tapes and CD's yet eventually fell in love with vinyl the most. DJ'd clubs and raves up and down the east coast of the US. I have what I would consider a mid-sized collection of electronic music. Most of my collection are songs you've likely never heard of, from artists you've likely never heard of. Those songs aren't just songs, they have memories attached to them. My memories of where I was, when, who I was with, how I'd gotten there, and why. Vinyl is a physical record in more ways than one. I believe that songs are instinctual to mankind during tribal celebration and grief. That's why our brains imprint memories with song so vividly.

    Yes I could transfer my entire rare collection to MP3 and illicit the same memories (studies with Alzheimer patients have proven the song is the medium to memory not the form it's played on). I like having them encased in physical form because the act of playing them causes me to make special effort to play them on my turntable. It's almost a religious process because special effort has to be made. The turntable becomes a shrine to the path of memories in a way. Being able to play them in my car, in a portable MP3 player, on my phone, etc.. all cheapens the experience of releasing those memories and if done consistently in other locations it muddies those memories. I think the real disconnect that young people don't quite understand is due to being too young to really appreciate time. If you are skeptical of what I just said, if you're thinking it's a bunch of bullshit, to you I simply say... wait until you're 50 and tell me what your opinion is then. Perspectives about your favorite music and the memories associated with that music will change over time.

    My 19 year old niece recently purchased a turntable and some vinyl. I was blown away that she would do such a thing when MP3's are everywhere. She didn't even know I had turntables or a single vinyl record. I enjoyed teaching her about the difference between a direct drive and belt drive. When she found out I have a huge record collection well, she never stopped asking to have some of my records. As a gift I gave her my mint original of Abbey Road. There is something tribal about passing down vinyl between generations. It's the right thing to do. When I die my entire vinyl collection is now slated to go to her. She won't appreciate each record in the same way I do and some she might not even like at all and discard. She'll come to have her own memories with the ones she enjoys and that's what it's all about. ;)

  20. It sounds different by hipsterdufus · · Score: 1

    Everyone will agree that a vinyl record sounds different than the CD/Blu Ray/SACD. This difference is due to the limitations of vinyl. Everybody is in agreement with this so far. The divergence occurs because some people equate the fact that the mixes are different to meaning that one must be better than the other. It would be very interesting if you could put the vinyl master mix on CD and see what people think. If people think vinyl is better than CD, they will play both sources and proclaim that whatever they hear as different is inherently better. Instrumentation will show that the CD is more accurate, of course, but that doesn't matter.

    This is true when shopping for loudspeakers or receivers. If you can hear a difference between two speakers in the store, you will invariably say that the more expensive one (or one with more prestige) must be the correct sound and that the other speaker is cheap. Measurements may indicate that the other speaker is technically producing a better representation of what is on the source, but the ears hear a difference then the eyes go about determining WHY they are different.

    This applies to many things: vinyl/cd, speaker a/b, wine a/b, and many other things.

    Buy what you like.

  21. I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything is recorded digitally,
    The main reason to get disc is so that you don't get the analog to digital conversion in the first place.

    the only thing you get is worse sound.

  22. 3D Printing LPs by fermento · · Score: 1

    When can I make LP's by my 3D printer? This way I can convert all of my mp3's to LP's and listen to them on a record player. They sound so much better on vinyl. :)

  23. no such thing as an unmixed master. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's either called the multitrack tape or file.

  24. Simple by bigdavex · · Score: 1

    Ever wondered why you sometimes have to wait months after an album's launch to get the music on vinyl?

    No.

    --
    -Dave
  25. Upgrade to Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love your "upgrade" path to spyware. CD's with spyware, DVDs with spyware, your phone spying on you. Absolutely fabulous.

    1. Re:Upgrade to Spyware by Jethro · · Score: 1

      What in Earth are you talking about? When did I ever say that was acceptable?

      Are you saying we should stick with analogue because it's harder to spy on you? Because I have some bad news for you if that's the case.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
  26. Is it really called "Viryl" Tech? by Bitmanhome · · Score: 1

    [googles] Holy crap yes. That's the most perfect business name I've seen all year.

    FWIW, here's their press release. They make and sell the machines, not the records.

    --
    Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
  27. Another Valid reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I already have 3000 LPs.

    Another valid reason:
    the recording magicians of yore knew all sorts of things. A Shure M-57 has a particular sound, and it can be 'tamed' with a little eq hear and there. That is one example of dozens, hundreds. Making lp records is partially a black art--and so is digital!
    Anyway, some, not all, of the lps and the master tapes from the vinyl era were tweaked to sound good as an lp. Some of the tweaks involved trying fix nasties earlier in the recording process, some to address deficiencies inherent in lps.
    Transferring the master tapes to digital does not guarantee it will sound or have a sound like the original lp.

  28. I still listen to music on vinyl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really liked the feel of leather seats, but I just couldn't afford them, and was worried the cloth seats would be too hard to keep clean.

  29. Sampling vs reproducing by DrYak · · Score: 1

    The point of high sampling frequencies is that you can then filter out any unwanted distortions in an easy way.

    Yes *sampling* at 192kHz makes sense for the record studio :
    it's much easier to make a very good filter that filters everything above the hearing range while leaving everything nicely intact underneath when done as a software plugin, instead of an actual physical filter.

    What I'm saying is that *playing back* at 192kHz as some sound cards and audio formats are able doesn't make much sense for a human to enjoy music.
    (Unless you're a *dog* enjoying music. Or a human doing some *weird scientific experiment* where you actually need a 192kHz signal - e.g.: feeding the output to some RF modulator to create some radio signal).

    Or in other words :
    - a 24bits 192kHz *ADC* - like you mention - is *useful* - for the exact technical reason you give (filtering out the ultra-sonics at a later stage in software)
    - a 24bits 192kHz *DAC* - like the above poster mentioned - has no purpose for the standard "human listens to music" situation (and can even be detrimental to the quality of the output)
    - a garden variety 16bits 48kHz DAC is already well enough for most everyday situations (playing an already processed song)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]