Fun Stuff > BAND

Why aren't hipsters allowed to like compact discs?

<< < (2/22) > >>

ALoveSupreme:

--- Quote from: tommydski on 14 Sep 2007, 17:47 ---Firstly, if you've ever actually heard the difference between a CD and a record, it is instantly apparent why someone who enjoys hearing particular types of music would prefer the latter. Music is essentially vibrations, so encoding the sound onto a digital format is always going to cause something to be lost in translation. A digital recording of sound is actually a series of samples at a certain rate, which means that by definition it is not a complete sound wave. A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. That is only one reason for disliking the compact disc though.

--- End quote ---
The only thing I never understood about this argument is that wouldn't the original recording have to be done in analogue as well?  If a recording is done on some form of digital recording, as most bands do (at least, most bands that most people listen to), wouldn't reformatting to an analogue sound format actually cause something to be lost in translation as far as sound quality goes?  I may not be wording that the best way possible, but I think the question is understandable.


--- Quote from: tommydski on 14 Sep 2007, 17:47 ---The main issue I have with CDs is that they made artists think that 80 minutes is an acceptable length of time for an album. I debate this furiously. There are very few albums that need 80 minutes to make a point. In the era of vinyl, artists were forced to trim albums of weaker songs or filler material. With CDs, they could happily include all the crap they wanted and then some. The ultimate result of this was that record labels decided that since you were getting digital sound quality and longer records, they could charge twice as much money as they had before. Then twice as much again. Essentially, the compact disc became the medium through which the Major Record Labels made buying music such an expensive affair.

--- End quote ---
I had never thought about this argument, however.  Brilliant.

Inlander:
However, if you consider that we're approaching an age in which the only limitation on musical quantity is the number of gigabytes of storage space on the listener's electronic device of choice, 80 minutes starts to look positively ascetic.

Johnny C:

--- Quote from: ALoveSupreme on 14 Sep 2007, 23:57 ---The only thing I never understood about this argument is that wouldn't the original recording have to be done in analogue as well?  If a recording is done on some form of digital recording, as most bands do (at least, most bands that most people listen to), wouldn't reformatting to an analogue sound format actually cause something to be lost in translation as far as sound quality goes?

--- End quote ---

The obvious solution is to record to analogue equipment.

3Z3VH:

--- Quote from: ALoveSupreme on 14 Sep 2007, 23:57 ---The only thing I never understood about this argument is that wouldn't the original recording have to be done in analogue as well?  If a recording is done on some form of digital recording, as most bands do (at least, most bands that most people listen to), wouldn't reformatting to an analogue sound format actually cause something to be lost in translation as far as sound quality goes?  I may not be wording that the best way possible, but I think the question is understandable.

--- End quote ---
Most digital recording (unless done on the cheap) is done at an extremely high sample rate, which cannot be put on a CD due to format restrictions.

3Z3VH:
One recording I am dying to get on Vinyl is the original pressing of Aphex Twin's 'Selected Ambient Works, Vol II'... it has 2 songs on it I can't find in a decent sample rate, because they WEREN'T on the CD !

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page