Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[3Z3VH]

On any sound system that doesn't cost a fortune, 192k is just about the limit of it's audio range.  You don't start getting into audio detail better than that unless you are pushing at least 120W/Speaker.

That doesn't make any sense at all.  Power has nothing to do with frequency response.  Generally speaking, power governs the volume, frequency response and shape of the speaker govern the detail.

People who enjoy music, tend to listen to said music at a volume where they can hear all the detail the music has to offer.  If you do not have a decent high-wattage sound system, the highs will not be nearly as crisp, and the lows will sound like they are full of static.  Also, in any audio system that isn't meant to push high wattage sound, you will NEVER see high quality capacitors or torroids, which are the most important components in the amp, that allow you to push clean sound out of any given speaker.  You can have the cleanest audio signal in the world going into your amplifier, but if the amp and speakers aren't up to the task, that pristine signal will still sound like crap.

[supertankguy]

Uh, right.  But 120W/speaker is an obnoxious amount of power unless you're talking about subs, and even then I'm seriously doubting an ear could perceive that much difference in detail given the frequency ranges involved.

[pilsner]

One thing to keep in mind with frequency range is that there is a lot of variation from person to person in terms of what can be detected.  For instance, the grand CD vs. Vinyl debate is sort of silly when you are dealing with frequencies below 20khz because the 44.1k cycles/s sampling provided by CD quality sound is generally accepted by experts to recreate the original waveform in its totality at those frequencies.

Where vinyl fanciers have a real point is with regard to frequencies above 20khz which may be omitted in the sampling -- the so-called inaudible range.  But inaudible for whom?  For instance, it is indisputable that there are frequencies audible to most teenagers but inaudible to most adults (hence the special cell phone ring that only teens can hear).  Furthermore, >20khz frequencies are more important with certain types music (classical, jazz) than they are with others (easy listening, top 40, underproduced garage).

So if you are someone blessed with exceptionally delicate hearing who happens to like classical or jazz, you may be justified in investing several thousands of dollars in a rig that would be completely wasted on someone with poorer hearing who listens to nothing but Interpol and Franz Ferdinand.  Incidentally, there are higher encoding formats than the 44.1k cycle/s sampling rate that go a lot farther into the "inaudible" range, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread.  With the advent of DVDs and the Super Audio CD format, there is no physical barrier to putting out single disc albums with these higher encoding standards -- but the demand for that is almost completely flat.

I'm not aware of a single expert who has suggested that vinyl can come close to competing with Super Audio CDs.  If you know of such a claim, I would be interested to hear it.

[3Z3VH]

Uh, right.  But 120W/speaker is an obnoxious amount of power unless you're talking about subs, and even then I'm seriously doubting an ear could perceive that much difference in detail given the frequency ranges involved.

Obnoxious for whom ?

I am one of those people who goes nuts over Home Theatre and Home Audio technology, and I can tell you without a doubt, there was a fair and noticeable difference when I stepped up from a 100W/channel Dennon amp, to a 120w/channel Emotiva amp, using the exact same speakers.  For instance, in the movie Master and Commander, when canonballs would hit the ship, before you would hear the ball hit and a bunch of wood cracking, but with the new amp you could hear each splinter hit the ground.  It takes someone who is interested in the details to hear them, but they are there.

And by Home Theatre standards, 120w is middle-ground.  There are Bob Carver (Sunfire, not the Carver Brand) theatre systems with upwards of 400w/channel, and subs with upward of 2700w Amplifiers in them.  And I only mention Sunfire equipment because that is what I would like to own, there are systems by McIntosh that quadruple that in pure Wattage.

[supertankguy]

The power output that your amp can produce and the amount of power your speakers need for you to "hear every splinter" are two different numbers. 

That 2700W monstrosity you linked is a subwoofer/amp combo and it actually is able to output sound that is almost loud enough to permanently damage your hearing (this is massive given the frequency ranges).  Smaller coned speakers generally don't require nearly that much power to output a louder sound.  The 400W amp you linked is designed to be mated with 90dB or higher midrange speakers (or at least I assume, since that is the rating on the midrange speakers on their site).  Furthermore, that amplifier output is 400W peak per-channel, 200W RMS (it's in the manual PDF they have linked). 

As an aside, I like how their marketing department has Joule's law listed as a feature of their amplifiers.  The power doubles when you halve the impedance?! Egads! It's as if somehow other amplifiers don't follow the same electrical properties and instead run on chicken bones and voodoo magic.  Don't believe all the hype about higher powered amps, it doesn't necessarily mean better sound quality usually those numbers are thrown around by the company's marketing team, it's far more important to purchase equipment that matches (characteristically, not necessarily in brand name or whatever) than it is to grab the highest power components you can.  I really and truly hate most audio equipment marketing, since it focuses so heavily on characteristics that aren't actually descriptive of the product.  I've seen 1000W amplifiers advertised that could only put 1000W into a theoretical one or half Ohm load, but they advertise them that way because it's technically correct.  It's truly ridiculous.

pilsner: I was mentioning frequencies in relation to subwoofers (and thus, how it probably didn't matter).  I agree with you about sampling rates though.  The Nyquist theorem basically states that you need to sample at two times the highest frequency in the signal to be able to accurately recreate the signal.  So if you enjoy music that is very active up in the 22kHz range you're pushing the limit for CD sound quality and would probably notice the difference if you switched to a medium that had an increased sampling rate.

[Scandanavian War Machine]

What a great lecture. Can I have my diploma now?


...

Oh, you're not done pounding your chests and grunting? Okay, I'll wait.

[3Z3VH]

I will give you the fact that they don't say RMS for that amp, how about this one that it replaced ?  I only assumed the 7400 was 400RMS because the amp it replaced WAS 400w RMS.

And Bob Carver's Speaker line is not indicative of the majority of the home theatre market.  They only recently started making speakers to fill a niche for Electrstatic Ribbon speaker fans.  If you are looking at most of what is offered by B&W, Legacy, or even cheap brands like Cerwin Vega you will see they all could eat up 400W RMS without a second thought.

On your thoughts of people just going for the highest Wattage possible, this is one of the reasons I like brands like Sunfire a lot more than brands like McIntosh.  They have good, quality components that focus on efficiency and quality, rather than simply throwing more power at the problem.

[3Z3VH]

What a great lecture. Can I have my diploma now?


...

Oh, you're not done pounding your chests and grunting? Okay, I'll wait.

This is a thread about hipsters, nay ?  What would a hipster community be like without arguments about what is best ?

[Scandanavian War Machine]

You're right! What a fool I've been!

Carry on, gentlemen.

[a pack of wolves]

There's more to it than just the frequencies. I have neither the refined hearing nor the equipment for there to be a sound quality difference between CDs and vinyl that I can detect but given the option I always buy vinyl. I prefer the greater physicality it brings to listening to a record, and the bigger album art and booklets. All the great woodcuts in the booklet for 'Sackcloth And Ashes The Ostrich Dies On Monday' by Submission Hold wouldn't look nearly as good in a CD booklet. And then there's the separation of the sides which some records use to great effect. 'Lift Yr Skinny Wrists...' by GYBE is a good example, or of course any split release.

[2HourHiatus]

Someone probably pointed this out already but, um, really, not allowed to like compact discs. I had no idea that being hipster is actually joining a facist group that hates CD's. It's a fucking CD! Can't we just all have our preferences and not care about every jack-ass elitist that thinks their format is the be all and end all. Can't we all just get along...*sobs*

[mfpole]

Get a blog?

[TomorrowByStorm]

This thread makes my head hurt. It's a fairly easy debate. CD's are the best. When you throw vinyl at people they break too easy, and Tapes just can't get the same distance. I guess MP3 players and the like would make a good dent...but who wants to throw $100 bucks and 40 gigs of hard earned torrents away? So CD's win....and for the really "hardcore" they can be sharpened.

The point I'm trying to make is...well I really don't know what my point was....I just know that when I plug my $25 dollar pair for head phones into whatever is playing my music, it all sounds pretty much the same. I'll worry about the inticate nuances of CD vs Vinyl when I stop having to spend my paychecks on silly things like food, coffee, and hot water.

[KharBevNor]

Man, the last time I used the word 'hipsters' on this forum I got the textual communication equivalent of a gorilla in full plate armour flamenco-dancing on my bollocks. And my points were significantly less retarded than this whole thread.

[ALoveSupreme]

This thread makes my head hurt. It's a fairly easy debate. CD's are the best. When you throw vinyl at people they break too easy, and Tapes just can't get the same distance. I guess MP3 players and the like would make a good dent...but who wants to throw $100 bucks and 40 gigs of hard earned torrents away? So CD's win....and for the really "hardcore" they can be sharpened.

you've clearly never played EmoGame

[Stefan Autsa]

I think [PERSONAL OPINION] is the best way, really.  Anything else is just [SWEARWORD].

[Rizzo]

I've only just begun to appreciate vinyl. I'd say everything has it's place. mp3 is always going to be most convenient in terms of the ability to store it on disc, drive or flash. CDs are nice for the marketability and ease of access. Vinyl you've got the very physical act of listening combined with huge art work, it makes for a much more sensory experience in my opinion.

One thing I have noticed at my local record store is that a lot of vinyl now comes with a free digital download of the album. I'd like to see this becoming the norm for albums.

Currently I own 4 7inch records, 200ish CDs and 22gig of mp3s which also include my 200ish CDs. I would like to end up with more vinyl than CDs but that'll take me a fair while considering I've purchased my CDs over the past 8 years or so.

[Phaedra]

One thing I have noticed at my local record store is that a lot of vinyl now comes with a free digital download of the album. I'd like to see this becoming the norm for albums.

Yes! That was such a good idea. I love vinyl, but I also love my ipod, and I don't have the ability to download music. So CDs are the only realistic option for me.

Edit: I should clarify that I don't have the ability to pirate music. I use a shared computer and don't have access privileges to install filesharing software. Lameeee.

[MusicScribbles]

I would very much have liked to start my enormous CD collection with vinyl instead, but CD's smaller size has made it much easier for a junior in high school to store in his room. I really would not know what to do with a vinyl collection, which means, where to put it. Also, being the only musically inclined member of my residential family, I have no access to any medium for playing vinyl. I wish I did, and that vinyl wasn't such an expensive endeavor in comparison to CD's. I guess when I go to college I'll start a collection.

[Rizzo]

Expensive? Damn. Here it's the same price or significantly cheaper than CDs.

[a pack of wolves]

Yeah, second hand vinyl is the next cheapest thing to downloading. The idea of a world where you can't just browse through the racks in a charity shop and then buy a record by the Space Negros because it's 50p and you just have to know what a band called the Space Negros sounds like is a bleak and terrifying one indeed.

[Rizzo]

From what I've heard apparently unless you're willing to pay $500ish (about 200 GBP) for one of those beasties, it's just going to sound nasty and wreck your records. However, I know you post on that other recording studio forum so I suggest asking their opinion on turntables. Frankly, I could be pulling this out my arse.

[Joseph]

The idea of them is really cool, and I have considered getting one for a while, but I recall hearing the same thing as Rizzo.

[supersheep]

It would also probably be cheaper to just hook your stereo system up to your computer. Assuming you have the right graphics card, all you'll need is some cabling. I can dig out that link I gave you on Gabbly if you want.

[a pack of wolves]

Even if you don't have the right soundcard you can get external soundcards that'll allow you to hook up a turntable for far less than a USB turntable, or even the cost of a decent turntable and soundcard. A friend of mine never listens to the vinyl she buys, she just rips it straight to mp3 through a set-up like that (incidentally, using the exact same turntable you have tommy) and the sound quality's fine.

[a pack of wolves]

She could spend hours tracking down a decent rip of them (and even then quite possibly end up with nothing), or support the artists and labels by buying their records. Seems sensible enough to me. Remember, a lot of releases are vinyl-only.

[muteKi]

Cassettes are actually very cool because they were cheaper than CDs and Records, which for an emerging technology was utterly unique. They also basically spawned the DIY, tape-trading scene and made it accessible to people who could not afford expensive equipment to participate. Of course you could also record things for free which was a great equalizer in itself. Also, they made music properly portable for the first time, which was an incredible feat. Another advatage was the variable tape sizes, which meant you could sometimes fit something like four albums on one tape. Also, when you bought a tape you could hear the album as it was meant to be heard - as two distinct sides rather than one continuous playlist. The sound quality of tapes is fine and I would much prefer to hear most bands I enjoy on tape. Find 'Murmur' by REM on tape if you need clarification of this.

Tapes were not bad at all.

Yes, especially if they're of a high enough quality, I mean, a type I tape is going to sound pretty bad in the end, but get up just to type II and the quality increases near-exponentially

[rhinohelicopter]

Unfortunately, I was born after the golden age of vinyl and have very little (though I like to think what I have is of high quality).  But, I really do prefer the warm sound that you get from vinyl that you can't get from digital formats (cd/mp3).  Not to say that there's anything wrong with digital recording I just think that it's easier to "feel" the music in analog.  But, I've noticed a lot of bands are starting to put out vinyl releases with codes for mp3 downloads (Pinback- Autumn of the Seraphs for example).  Maybe people will start buying vinyl again now that it's easy to get a copy of the album into a portable format. 

[Darkbluerabbit]

I only see vinyl sold in a few places.  There's thrift stores that sell old Cher or Tom Jones albums for $1, and there's record stores that sell limited edition vinyl releases of Bright Eyes and hipster emo albums for $25.  I think I will stick with CDs for new music purchases.

That said, my dad was a big music collector when he was younger, and I've had some good times going through his old vinyl.  He has a pretty good collection.  Lots of classics, and there is definitely something special about the feel of a record. 

I like CDs because I have a cassette adapter in my car that lets me play them.   I don't have an mp3 player, so I burn stuff off of my computer.  I like making mix CDs especially.  Also, from time to time I drive across my state to get home from college.  I usually get on a rideshare board because carpooling saves the planet and scores me some gas money, so I wind up traveling with people who might not appreciate much of my music, so I have a couple of "inoffensive" mixes that won't make anyone hate the trip, including me.  I usually check out their Facebook profiles, giggle at their terrible taste, and then pick the couple of bands they like that don't suck, a few bands I like that aren't too "weird," and make up a mix.   

I used to not have a portable CD player, so I did listen to a lot of tapes.  I found pretty good ones hella cheap too.  Unfortunately they don't hold up very well in a hot car, so most of my favorites got ruined. 

I like mp3s because I have a nice big hard drive, and Media Monkey so I can find any song in seconds. 

Basically, I like music.  I'm not enough of an audiophile to really care about subtle differences in medium, and I'm too poor to listen through anything that'd let me hear the differences anyway, so whatever's most convenient to the situation makes me happy. 

[Phaedra]

Vinyl prices vary pretty wildly over here. Most CDs retail for between $22-35 depending on whether they're imported or not, whereas full-length vinyl recordings go for anywhere between $18-55. Some of those are collector's pieces, of course, but then My Bloody Valentine's Loveless was priced at $45, which is a bit ridiculous (and as far as I know, was just a standard release)...

[Johnny C]

Yeah, that's absurd. I live in a town of 200,000 people and our independent record shop still sells vinyl at basically CD prices or slightly above - double LPs cost more for obvious reasons, as do limited editions. Still, I can afford to get and therefore do get vinyl whenever I can as opposed to CDs.

If a record store is making it hard for you, the best I can suggest is the Internet.

[ViolentDove]

Or buy it second hand, if you're prepared to wade through racks of Spandau Ballet. I love second hand vinyl shopping.

[valley_parade]

There is almost nothing better in the world than buying second-hand records.

Though there was the one time I ended up getting a Police album that was a total wreck.

[ALoveSupreme]

You gotta check those 2ndhand vinyl copies before you buy.  But, yeah, there is definitely no better way to spend an afternoon than inhaling 5 pounds of dust pilfering through horrible, horrible (and sometimes completely repetitive) copies of records to find that one Loretta Lynn for 25 cents.  Awesome.

[pilsner]

I was so about to post that.

[schimmy]

What did you expect from a Police record?

[öde]

I managed to get a Sigue Sigue Sputnik 7" and a Stiff Little Fingers 7" for 50p!

[a pack of wolves]

I got a Joan of Arc LP for 10p!

[Hat]

Most of the time in the independent record stores here, any record that isn't a worn out copy from the 70's typically costs double the CD price. You lucky bastards.

[ViolentDove]

You've got to go to op-shops, pawn shops, and the like. Sometimes second-hand book shops have a vinyl section too. All of them are generally cheaper than record stores.

[Hat]

I don't think I've ever seen a second hand vinyl pressed after 1990.

[Darkbluerabbit]

Most of the time in the independent record stores here, any record that isn't a worn out copy from the 70's typically costs double the CD price. You lucky bastards.

I'm with you.  I can't really complain though.  I don't have a turntable.  I'm sure this is some sort of music appreciator crime, but at present it's not worth it for me to invest in one.

I do completely adore looking through old records.  Not having the means to play them just means I get the fun of looking, without the pressure to choose which ones I want to buy.  I get to inhale all that wonderful dust.  What is it about the dust that collects on records?  It has a special scent to it that no other dusty old objects have.  It's like you can smell the music. 

It could be in my head.

[Phaedra]

I don't think I've ever seen a second hand vinyl pressed after 1990.

Maybe it's an Australian thing? Op shops here only seem to have stuff like childrens' nursery rhymes and badly recorded opera. All the people with good taste in music seem to have cottoned onto the fact that they can sell their secondhand vinyl through boutique record stores for close to the original price.
Perhaps I should give ebay a shot...

[Johnny C]

You gotta check those 2ndhand vinyl copies before you buy.  But, yeah, there is definitely no better way to spend an afternoon than inhaling 5 pounds of dust pilfering through horrible, horrible (and sometimes completely repetitive) copies of records to find that one Loretta Lynn for 25 cents.  Awesome.

My copy of Talking Heads 77 is from a second-hand store.

[McTaggart]

Op shops here (Perth) don't have shit in general. We've got at least three places that are good for second hand vinyl, depending on what you're looking for. All of them are music stores.

[ViolentDove]

Well, Sydney and surrounds has decent hunting grounds for second hand vinyl. Hell, I just picked up the first Shakti album from GOSFORD.

[Phaedra]

Op shops here (Perth) don't have shit in general. We've got at least three places that are good for second hand vinyl, depending on what you're looking for. All of them are music stores.

Ooh, please tell me where these are! I only know of Dada Records, which in my experience has been great for stocking rare stuff new, but kind of...lousy in terms of secondhand. Or perhaps you just have better luck than I do?

[McTaggart]

Dada's can find have neat things if you're lucky (or just opn minded). The other one in the city is Blowfly Records which in on Barrack st (walk from jb toward borders and turn right when you hit Barrack, it's downstairs on your right about halfway to St. Georges Tce) They have tons of second hand records but you're gonna need time to dig through them all.

The other one I'm thinking of is in Freo, next to a coffee shop. I'm not sure what it's called or where to find it but I can usually find my way there if I'm persistant. Maybe if you walk from the train station to Little Creatures in the most direct path it'll be down a road (parallel to the train tracks I think) on your right. It has a yellow sign. It stocks mostly old jazz, blues, rock and things, pretty much solely records and a fair bit of dust.

[muteKi]

Posting another post about the princes of alternative, Manfred Mann's Earth Band:

For some of their songs, I think that the original tapes were lost, and most original album art definitely was.
Interestingly enough, when some of their albums got taken to the digital level, many of the first recordings (and there are several from all sorts of different distributors, including Mann's personal label, Cohesion) that were made were actually copies of near-mint records. Some of them have only barely noticeable deficiencies in sound quality, the occasional crackle in some quieter moments.
So I am convinced that a good record can indeed be a high-quality recording, at least in its first uses, since as it is used it wears down; my recordings have significantly less treble, which I think is bad considering how the songs are arranged, tracked, produced, and such. I personally prefer the CD remasters as the added space is used for bonuses for the collectors in all of us. All things considered, they're a good group to want to collect for this very reason -- at this point something to the tune of maybe two songs have never been released on an album, and yet more CDs and DVDs have extra material from concerts and such.
This is a band that has made two studio albums in 15 years, so filling up new albums with a lot of songs is not a bad thing to my mind.

[Hat]

Every time I see this thread I keep thinking its the setup for a really bad joke.