This sounds like it COULD be

[usuallee]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

I'd guess audiophiles have a fetish for using a demonstrably worse format and insisting it's totally better.

As a vinyl enthusiast I must respectfully object to this and the other dismissive comments. True, it's a fiddly format and there are about a thousand ways to get vinyl playback wrong. But that's part of the charm. To get good results you have to invest in a half decent turntable, cartridge, and preamp, and put in some work to get it right. But if you do that, the results can be truly magical. Forget about clicks and pops - they don't exist with a clean, good condition record in a proper setup. Also, the records themselves and their sleeves are fascinating historical artifacts and are beautiful to display.

These are some of the many valid reasons why vinyl has made a comeback. It's just plain wrong to dismissively chalk it up entirely to hipster-ism. Though admittedly, that's a part of it, and I'm as baffled as anyone at the cassette resurgence.

Don't get me wrong, I love digital music. Digital can sound great, too. I love playlists and on-the-fly song queuing. I have a full Roon setup, and a Qobuz subscription. But digital recordings are often brickwalled (no dynamic range i.e. "loudness war") which is impossible with vinyl, and the sound can be quite sterile and even harsh at times in certain recordings.

Anyway I just had to stick up for vinyl and offer a counterpoint to some of the comments. I guess my point is, as is the case with pbooks and ebooks, digital and vinyl both have different charms, as well as less charming aspects. There's room for both.

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by usuallee

As a vinyl enthusiast I must respectfully object to this and the other dismissive comments. True, it's a fiddly format and there are about a thousand ways to get vinyl playback wrong. But that's part of the charm. To get good results you have to invest in a half decent turntable, cartridge, and preamp, and put in some work to get it right. But if you do that, the results can be truly magical. Forget about clicks and pops - they don't exist with a clean, good condition record in a proper setup. Also, the records themselves and their sleeves are fascinating historical artifacts and are beautiful to display.

These are some of the many valid reasons why vinyl has made a comeback. It's just plain wrong to dismissively chalk it up entirely to hipster-ism. Though admittedly, that's a part of it, and I'm as baffled as anyone at the cassette resurgence.

Don't get me wrong, I love digital music. Digital can sound great, too. I love playlists and on-the-fly song queuing. I have a full Roon setup, and a Qobuz subscription. But digital recordings are often brickwalled (no dynamic range i.e. "loudness war") which is impossible with vinyl, and the sound can be quite sterile and even harsh at times in certain recordings.

Anyway I just had to stick up for vinyl and offer a counterpoint to some of the comments. I guess my point is, as is the case with pbooks and ebooks, digital and vinyl both have different charms, as well as less charming aspects. There's room for both.

Sorry, but there are NO valid reasons for vinyl to come back. And your arguments here demonstrates exactly why. The "charm" of putting it on. That's a statement demonstrates it is more important to be able to get the LP out, inspect it, clean it with that absurdly expensive brush, carefully put it on the turntable, check the speed is right and then carefully lower the needle than to actually listen to the music. ritual is more important.

Then there is highly specialised equipment to try and effort to get the best out of the format. Which is really only going to be noticeable under perfect circumstances. I'm not going to attempt to argue if analog can produce better sound than digital, but, most people can't tell the difference, and hardly anyone actually listens to music in circumstances were they would be able to tell. And be honest, exactly how much do you have to pay to completely remove all that noise? And personally, one of the first CDs I played was Suzanne Vega's "Solitude Standing". The first song is sung a capella. The complete and utter lack of any noise convinced me that I wasn't going back to LPs.

I will admit that I miss LP covers. Some had lots of interesting things in them. Some where completely boring. Of course, CDs usually have the same details, but in smaller booklets. But, if I am honest, I read them once, and never again. And I can find all that information and more online if I need it. And I never had any desire to hang LP covers on the wall as decoration. If that was desirable, a poster based on the cover would be better.

[ottischwenk]

Analog has its justification.

In a small room of about 300 cubic meters, I can hear whether the playback is coming from an analog or digital device and can (blindly) determine it to about 95%.

Of course, provided that the playback devices are in the highest quality level.

[rkomar]

The point isn't to convince you to switch to vinyl. It's to let you know that liking vinyl isn't necessarily about being a hipster. There were some insults lobbed at people who listen to vinyl, especially the accusation that they only do it to be pretentious. Just take these responses as explanations for why those insults are unfair, and leave it at that.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by usuallee

To get good results you have to invest in a half decent turntable, cartridge, and preamp, and put in some work to get it right. But if you do that, the results can be truly magical. Forget about clicks and pops - they don't exist with a clean, good condition record in a proper setup. Also, the records themselves and their sleeves are fascinating historical artifacts and are beautiful to display.

You need to spend a lot, the frequency response reduces with each play and you need practically an industrial clean room. I did work in the BBC, engineering, not presentation, acting or even mixing.
Even then it's inferior to the same content on 256 k MP3, never mind CD or Flac.
I've never ever in 50 years seen anyone display the LP covers. You see it briefly. You can see the same cover now on your Tablet, big TV, laptop or monitor while listening, or at any time. Even have a slide show on a photo frame or TV.

Originally Posted by usuallee

These are some of the many valid reasons why vinyl has made a comeback. It's just plain wrong to dismissively chalk it up entirely to hipster-ism.

It's not just hipsterism, but has been a niche ever since CDs came out.

Originally Posted by usuallee

… But digital recordings are often brickwalled (no dynamic range i.e. "loudness war") which is impossible with vinyl, and the sound can be quite sterile and even harsh at times in certain recordings.

No dynamic range can apply to Analogue FM too. Any decent dynamic range is impossible with vinyl. The 45s have often more dynamic range than LPs in the 1960s due to playing time 3.5 minutes instead of 8. They often will sound louder at the same settings, not due to faster velocity. An LP goes faster linear velocity on the 1st track than a 45. An LP with 20+ minutes per side is reduced in dynamic range to master it. Classical music, and much folk music is not over-compressed on CD, and Rock etc is using the same over compressed badly mixed final master digital recording to feed LP, CD and digital sales.

You are not comparing identical program material.

Cassettes only make sense for Audiobooks. They are good enough quality for that and unlike a CD (or an MP3 moved to different device) "remember" the last position. With phones for the last 10 years being as good as dedicated players, there is no need for the cassette walkman or mix tape.
Though a 3.5mm jack to amp or headphones is superior to most Bluetooth connections and €12 wired buds can be better than €40 to €120 Wireless buds. Also don't need charged.

I have two "good enough" turntables-cartridges. If somehow I end up with something on Vinyl it gets played once into Audacity.

I recently got a cache of LPs I'd bought in the 1970s that my mum had hidden since 1974! I'd since replaced some with CD. The others will get played once on a Dual 505 via a Rotel amp into either a Zoom Handy Recorder H4N (standalone) or an external Creative Labs USB box to Audacity on a PC.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

Analog has its justification.

In a small room of about 300 cubic meters, I can hear whether the playback is coming from an analog or digital device and can (blindly) determine it to about 95%.

Of course, provided that the playback devices are in the highest quality level.

And if the digital content is made from the Analogue content and played on same amp and speakers at CD format quality from a file? No-one can do that in a Blind test.

[Apache]

And 8 track never got any love.
Apache

[ottischwenk]

Originally Posted by Quoth

And if the digital content is made from the Analogue content and played on same amp and speakers at CD format quality from a file? No-one can do that in a Blind test.

You are wrong - many and I can clearly hear (feel) the difference.

[DNSB]

I can help but remember when one of the audio power amplifier manufacturers had fun with the "Golden Ears" crowd. Evidently they hooked up 5 or 6 amplifiers including a couple of tube amps, a Carver Magnetic amp, etc with a high end input and speakers. There was a big switch which allowed you to "select" the amplifier. Many of the people present could "hear" the differences between the tube amplifiers, the Carver Magnetic amp and the more standard solid state amplifiers. At the end of the listening session, it was revealed that all the switch positions were connected to the same Carver Magnetic amplifier. I ranked them with the crowd that used a marker pen (preferably a green one) on the edges of CDs to improve the sound.

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

You are wrong - many and I can clearly hear (feel) the difference.

I have no hassle with the idea that analog could produce a better sound. But, to achieve that, you need to spend a lot of money. And have perfect conditions. I'll maintain that most people can't really hear it. And that hardly anyone listens to music in conditions where the difference is noticeable.

But, we have gone way off topic in this thread. The discussion should be moved to the lounge, though I'd be surprised if there wasn't already a thread there.

[maddz]

Or in my case the justification is that it's never been digitised.

I have a small collection of my late father's jazz albums I lugged back from the Lebanon when my sister and I cleared his flat. They are mostly direct-to-disc recordings from obscure labels which have never been digitised.

[drofgnal]

Originally Posted by usuallee

As a vinyl enthusiast I must respectfully object to this and the other dismissive comments. True, it's a fiddly format and there are about a thousand ways to get vinyl playback wrong. But that's part of the charm. To get good results you have to invest in a half decent turntable, cartridge, and preamp, and put in some work to get it right. But if you do that, the results can be truly magical. Forget about clicks and pops - they don't exist with a clean, good condition record in a proper setup. Also, the records themselves and their sleeves are fascinating historical artifacts and are beautiful to display.

These are some of the many valid reasons why vinyl has made a comeback. It's just plain wrong to dismissively chalk it up entirely to hipster-ism. Though admittedly, that's a part of it, and I'm as baffled as anyone at the cassette resurgence.

Don't get me wrong, I love digital music. Digital can sound great, too. I love playlists and on-the-fly song queuing. I have a full Roon setup, and a Qobuz subscription. But digital recordings are often brickwalled (no dynamic range i.e. "loudness war") which is impossible with vinyl, and the sound can be quite sterile and even harsh at times in certain recordings.

Anyway I just had to stick up for vinyl and offer a counterpoint to some of the comments. I guess my point is, as is the case with pbooks and ebooks, digital and vinyl both have different charms, as well as less charming aspects. There's room for both.

I have no love for vinyl. In fact my old record collection was donated to an art student who used the vinyl for an art collage. Somewhere they are glued to a wall. That's where they belong. The album covers, thrown in the recycling bin.

I'm a Quboz subscriber, and have a decent collection of SACD, hi-rez recordings purchased from HD Tracks, and a bunch of CDs. There are some phenomenal recordings out there that vinyl will never touch, some recorded in DSD. (Joni Mitchell Both Sides Now) Brickwalling and loudness wars are not the same thing, but are commonly misconstrued on forums. Brick walling is the process of limiting the upper frequency range to 1/2 the sample rate. So for a CD about 22 kHz for a 44.1 kHz sample rate. It's a normal and necessary part of putting out a CD or any digital PCM file as required by the Nyquist theorem. (Nyquist theorem and anti-aliasing) For higher rez that would be 48 kHz for 96 kHz sample rates, etc. They don't have to be compressed (compressing dynamic range). That's a different beast altogether. Loudness or dynamic range compression is the process of limiting the volume difference in dB of the lowest sounds to the highest sounds. A cd has a theoretical dynamic range of 96db (16 bit) which can be 120 db with noise shaped dither, vinyl does good to get to 70. I have many great sounding CDs without compression (loudness wars) and they will all be brick walled at 22 kHz. A well mastered CD can be hard to tell from SACD or high rez files, some say impossible. Also, in today's modern era of recording almost anything new even in vinyl has spent some time in the digital realm prior to being run through a dac for making the record. When the Beatles first came out with their 2009 remaster of all their work, the original vinyl that was put out was produced form a 44/16 master, an error they have since corrected.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

a marketing opportunity for ebooks and ereaders. It probably WON'T be, but played right, it could be, imo:

https://qz.com/2059755/book-publishe...2021-holidays/

I agree about the possibilities. If people can't get pbooks then they are more likely to go for the ebook version just to have something new to read.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by PeterT

But there will be a shortage of bits used by every eBook

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[crich70]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

Oh, and is the "p" in "pBook" paper or physical?

I imagine it could be both, though the media carrier for the ebook is still corporeal in nature. At least I haven't noticed my hands passing through my Kindle Fire of late.