Metropolis
Well-Known Member
Enlighten me then. In general I would rather have no playback speed variation and a wider frequency spectrum with a master which sounds all channels are there. This especially with modern sounding music or audio.
Wintersun's Groundhog's Day Thread
- Thread starter jvms
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Enlighten me then. In general I would rather have no playback speed variation and a wider frequency spectrum with a master which sounds all channels are there. This especially with modern sounding music or audio.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
TedEH
Cromulent
Vinyl is not mono. Both channels are encoded into it, just like you'd get with a CD. Also, it's not any less "full spectrum" either, putting aside that plenty of folks are kidding themselves about how high or low a frequency they think they can hear anyway. What's meaningfully different about vinyl is dynamic range. And even then, some people argue that you end up with better mastering because of the added constraints.
Neon_Knight_
Well-Known Member
The notion that vinyl = better is a myth. The reality is that it depends.
Some food for thought:
Vinyl generally sounds warmer than other formats. Some people like this warmth, but that's a subjective preference. Objectively, it's a less accurate representation of the original music, because its warmer than the original.
This unnatural warmness is presumably what @Metropolis means by "dullness of a vinyl". If someone is used to listening to vinyl, they may find that the brighter sound of CDs to be "sterile" or "harsh, even though it's a more natural and accurate representation of the music, but that's because their ears have been conditioned.
If warmer was objectively better, surely this would be addressed by musicians and sound engineers at source.
On average, a low-end turntable will sound better than a low-end CD player of the same price. This is because one technology is older, simpler and cheaper to manufacture.
However, the best CD player is superior to the best turntable. This is because one is more advanced technology than the other.
Most people own low-end audio equipment, so that's what most opinions are formed around.
The influence of this on the debate could be heightened by the fact that a lot of people (at least from my perception) prioritise upgrading speakers over turntables / CD players / amps and will use the same speakers for both formats. Assuming someone selects speakers to achieve a balanced sound with their turntable, but runs a CD player through the same speakers as an afterthought, the speakers will be brighter than is optimal for that CD player. Guitar players encounter the same issue if they select bright pickups to compliment a dark amp, but then plug that same guitar into a bright amp - it sounds harsh / sterile / thin / stiff / ice-picky.
Some modern vinyl is more compressed than the same music in CD format, so is objectively inferior.
There was a similar issue with music that predated CDs being re-released in CD format without being suitably remastered, so the end result was invariably worse than the original vinyl version. This will have heavily influenced many people's opinion on the CD vs. vinyl debate.
Neon_Knight_
Well-Known Member
@Metropolis didn't say vinyl is mono. They suggested that the stereo image is inferior ("lacking" meaning 'deficient in', not 'the absence of', in this case).
CD has lower crosstalk and better phase stability. Whether or not this improves an individual's listening experience is subjective, but it's objectively better.
TedEH
Cromulent
I think this easily falls into [citation needed] territory. If you put them through the exact same speakers, you're effectively comparing a DAC to a whole analogue process where plenty can go wrong. At the highest end, I would contest that most people can tell a meaningful difference outside of some kind of psychoacoustic bias.
When you combine "lacking stereo image" with "not all channels are there", that definitely sounds to me like he was implying vinyl is mono. Either he was implying it, or communicated what he meant to say very poorly, because I don't know what else it would mean to say that not all the channels are there.
Metropolis
Well-Known Member
This seems similar to those "pickups don't matter" discussions.
Objectively meaning that little phase issues, lower bitrate and different mastering procedures lead to that kind of sound. Probably correct word I should have used is separation.
I'm not a hi-fi or vinyl person, nor do I think they are mutually inclusive by default. I though you were saying vinyl was literally not in stereo, but I'm not sure what you were actually saying is a valid criticism either.
TedEH
Cromulent
^ Basically what Salsa was saying.
I don't know why we're mentioning bitrate when talking about vinyl. It's not digital. It has no bits. Therefor it has no bitrate.
I don't know why we're mentioning bitrate when talking about vinyl. It's not digital. It has no bits. Therefor it has no bitrate.
works0fheart
Tike Myson
I'm sure that the reasons I'm going to nitpick the album will certainly be because of the listening format I chose and not that the music isn't the epiphany inducing sonic eargasm that I'm so frequently told it is.
Neon_Knight_
Well-Known Member
Even at the highest end, there will be EQ differences as a minimum.
TedEH
Cromulent
And? What are we even talking about at this point? The fact that the two sources have to be mastered differently mean they will always be objectively different, but this was about an assertion that you can directly decide on a definitive winner in terms of the "quality" of one vs. the other - which was itself in response to someone asserting that vinyl was bad because it's "low bit rate". I mean, you could do something as insignificant as move the speakers around in the room, and you'll get some differences - my entire point was that the average consumer, who might for example think that vinyl has a "bit rate" wouldn't be able to meaningfully call one or the other better. We're talking about one of the most debated things ever: the subjective experience of listening to things.
