Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j1zsrww wrote

Reply to comment by Laethettan in Wiil CD's make a comeback like Vinyl? by trukises

[removed]

3

PossibilitySuperb465 t1_j1zza1c wrote

lol you are so impassioned about this, but tell me, what is the bitrate of tape or vinyl?

Analog media is not directly comparable to digital formats, and in a sense all digital formats are lossy by comparison. Just as film (read: tape; analog) can be used to produce 4k versions of film (state of the art digital format) where as DVD (old digital; highly compressed; lossy) cannot, tape can be used to produce the highest possible quality transfer to CDs (old digital; lossy but usually acceptable/inaudible) and even higher bitrate formats; or vinyl. Vinyl does have distortion, and particularly it can degrade over time, but any digital transfer was lossy (in a different way; it is subtractive) to begin with.

And yes, any additive modification of the source audio by the media itself is basically a form of distortion, but people have long preferred tube amps due to their distortion properties, which are frequently very pleasing even on settings that sound very "clean". It simply adds character--but if you want to be more of an engineer about it, it adds characteristics to the wave forms it produces or records.

So anyway, I'm not really persuaded by your "audio quality is objective" argument. Resolution is objective, but not always comparable between media... so not a very good way of comparing things, obviously.

In conclusion, there were some very good machines which we now consider old. They are still very good, especially in certain aesthetic ways.

Do I own a record player? No. It's expensive and wasteful and silly in my opinion. But there are differences and I wouldn't begrudge anyone that hobby if they have the time and money for it.

4

JHDarkLeg t1_j20l4ze wrote

>all digital formats are lossy by comparison

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

Digital isn't lossy within the Nyquist bandwidth, it's mathematically provable. CDs do not utilize lossy compression algorithms like DVDs do.

5

PossibilitySuperb465 t1_j20nu4e wrote

That's really interesting, but is that the same as saying audio "quality" won't benefit from a higher sample rate? I actually can't tell from reading it. It seems like it establishes a minimum sample rate sufficient for reproduction of the wave form, but there is still interpolation occurring in the process, which seems to imply higher rates may impact the result to me.

My point was that analog media are not constructed of data points at all, which remains true, but I'm interested to understand more, as you are correct that CDs are *not* directly comparable to DVDs in terms of using lossy compression.

1

JHDarkLeg t1_j20q9mb wrote

A higher sampling rate will capture a larger frequency range, but it won't improve the sound quality within that range.

The interpolation you mention is called quantization error, caused by having to use discrete steps rather than an infinitely analog level. Quantization error effects the maximum dynamic range of the recording. A 16-bit CD has a dynamic range of 96dB vs about 70dB for vinyl.

Analog media does have it's own "data points" as well. The size of the magnetic particles on tape or the size of vinyl that is required to still be strong enough to not break when in contact with the stylus. It's harder to measure but it's there.

Regarding compression, CDs do not use lossy compression whereas DVDs use MPEG2 lossy compression.

3

PossibilitySuperb465 t1_j20t087 wrote

>Analog media does have it's own "data points" as well. The size of the magnetic particles on tape or the size of vinyl that is required to still be strong enough to not break when in contact with the stylus. It's harder to measure but it's there.

Do you know if it tends to be more or less information than a digital transfer of the same material on CD?

Half-baked thought: I wonder if there is any audible characteristic to regularity/irregularity of information density on a media. Like I assume CDs would be very regular, where as tape may actually be inconsistent in this respect.

2

PossibilitySuperb465 t1_j20qxzl wrote

Sorry, intended to agree with you about CDs/DVDs using compression/not using compression. Edited my previous post to fix the typo.

In terms of capture, missing a frequency range sounds like it compromises 'fidelity' in some audible sense if those ranges are indeed audible--all of this as compared with analog media.

Simply asked: Is it possible that someone could hear and prefer/dislike the sound of audio recorded at above the threshold described by the nyquist theorem?

1

appleburger17 t1_j206gvu wrote

What measures of "higher audio quality" are you choosing to make this determination? Because in some ways vinyl is absolutely higher quality (the fact that digital creates non-perfect approximations of an analog source and is then limited by a bit and sample rate, a lowly 16bit 44.1kHz for CD) and in other ways CD is higher (dynamic range potential). A lossless digital file played through a high quality DAC has the dynamic range advantage with digital coding that is a much closer representation of an analog source than a CD.

2

Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j20ekjy wrote

Is a JPEG or a PNG ~less~ of a Static Visual Image than something like an old-school Polaroid Picture??? One is digital, the other is traditional / analogue. But both are "images."

1

Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j20f41b wrote

Why did Captain Sisko even WANT the stupid old baseball, when he could have just told the Replicator to make him one just as easily as it was making Picard's Earl Gray Tea, or Janeway's coffee????

1

appleburger17 t1_j20fauh wrote

Assuming you mean to say "less quality" rather than just "less of a static visual image" (since something is either a static image or is not so cannot be less or more without introducing a measure of quality), you haven't provided enough information to answer this question. Which signals to me you don't understand the technology well enough to hold this conversation in an intelligent way.

1

Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j20g8xi wrote

Is a digital picture not a picture because it's digital????

If you have a fancy digital camera that's rated for a crazy amount of Mega Pixels, you would still prefer an analogue camera from the 70s or 80s????

1

appleburger17 t1_j20i2sy wrote

You keep coming so close to the point without even realizing it only to set up some other random unrelated thought full of a whole new set of problems.

2

Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j20k5pi wrote

Yeah. It's called ADHD.

HOLY SHIT, LOOK AT THAT SQUIRREL!!! I'M GUNNA CHASE IT UP THAT TREE!! YUH-HUH, YUH-HUH!!! YUP!!! IMA GUNNA GIT'EM!!!

1

Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j20gnvl wrote

Do you prefer your movies to be on old-school 8mm Film?

Is DVD or Blue Ray just too mainstream and plebeian for you??

1

[deleted] t1_j214d51 wrote

[removed]

1

appleburger17 t1_j21ckru wrote

I have a degree in audio engineering and have worked in recording studios and live sound reinforcement for decades. Sorry if “do your own Google research” doesn’t cut it for me.

It is a fact, which you can Google if you’d like, that digital audio (CD) is an approximation of an analog source. The quality of that approximation is most often determined and measured in bit rate and sample rate. The higher the bit and sample rate the higher quality and closer it gets to its analog source which has no such limitation. By that measure, vinyl can be higher quality. It is a more exact representation of the source.

It is also a fact, again goggleable, that CD’s dynamic range potential is higher than vinyl. In that measure, CDs can be higher quality.

Which is why I asked what measure you were using to make your case. Unfortunately, you can’t answer with anything but “google it”.

1

[deleted] t1_j21h8p4 wrote

[removed]

1

appleburger17 t1_j21wwyj wrote

Never, in the history of recorded music, has it been commonplace to make original recordings on vinyl. Again, you have no clue what you’re talking about.

1

BoneyDanza t1_j229ep8 wrote

No dude, tiny metal needles are MUCH more sensitive than the lasers /s 😆🤣😂😆😂

1