ones and zeros

OK I guess this makes me a lunatic or whatever but I don't buy that perception of music starts and finishes with our ears. Simply because our ears stop recognizing sounds somewhere above 20k does not mean that there is not another receptor in the human body that takes those frequencies in. Now of course you can write me off there because I'm not going to be able to pull out any axioms that can lend weight to what I'm saying. And of course now I'm not talking about hearing anymore so I guess we're straying from what sounds better. So I understand if you are happy to go with science and say well, hearing cuts off there, anything above that threshold is pointless. You can stop reading here.

The problem with science is that you tend to find what you're looking for. Look for waves and you find waves but look for particles and you get particles. People may have done fantastic experiments in regards to what is audible to the ear but were they looking for evidence of absorption in other parts of the body? Do we even have sufficient technology to determine this? So naturally I don't have the answers but I find it narrow-minded to simply assume the correctness of current science. All we need do is look back to see some of the stupid shit people have taken as Truth in the past to see what an error that is.

What I do know is that despite possible distortion, inappropriate handling, substandard playback devices and any/all other feasible faults that would prevent a vinyl LP from playing back the exact program, the medium offers significantly larger frequency response than CD. I'm sure most people simply do not care - in fact I'd wager that Sean and Rob don't give a fuck about this either - but it seems like a no-brainer to me that if all that extra stuff is present - whether we think we can hear/feel/experience it or not - then I would want to be listening to that version.

I'm not going to try and tell you that *every* record sounds better than disk. Some sound fucking horrible, to be frank. But some slay their CD counterparts. I'm sure most of this comes down to mastering but to be honest I don't trust my ears to the extent that I would want to tell someone that the extra information does nothing. I'm not going to lay this down as a benchmark but I know that Elliott Mazer only truly accepted digital audio when he was played music recorded at 192khz. Now his word is by no means law but he's sure been producing records a hell of a lot longer than I have. I still come to my own conclusions but it's interesting to hear someone with that much experience behind them say that.

But meh. I'm probably crazy and you probably don't care either way so I'll leave it there.

  On 2/26/2010 at 6:39 PM, Greg Reason said:

OK I guess this makes me a lunatic or whatever but I don't buy that perception of music starts and finishes with our ears. Simply because our ears stop recognizing sounds somewhere above 20k does not mean that there is not another receptor in the human body that takes those frequencies in. Now of course you can write me off there because I'm not going to be able to pull out any axioms that can lend weight to what I'm saying. And of course now I'm not talking about hearing anymore so I guess we're straying from what sounds better. So I understand if you are happy to go with science and say well, hearing cuts off there, anything above that threshold is pointless. You can stop reading here.

That's totally correct in my opinion. When you put a record on the deck, it's an experience. The large artwork, the large disc, the whole dropping the needle thing. With a CD everything's on a much smaller scale and the process is a lot quicker, giving you less time to fully enjoy the physical nature of what you're listening to. With mp3s it's even worse - a few clicks or pressing a button and hey presto. I wrote something about this in a blog:

  Quote

Notice how the "good old LP" will almost never sound "perfect" - frequency response, in comparison to digital media, is awful with rolloff and accentuated frequencies varying from deck to deck; pops and crackles are heard almost always; and one scratch to a record's surface can ruin a track and transform it into a caught loop, which only ends once the listener has moved the stylus on. Therefore, there's more evidence to support abandoning the vinyl format altogether. However, it's still here, alive and kicking, perhaps even growing in popularity. Why? Because vinyl demands attention. The disc needs to be carefully taken out of it's cover, placed on the turntable, and have the needle dropped. This isn't achieved with mp3s - one click and you're away, listening to music in high quality digital sound. Mp3's won't ever skip or get caught - the listener won't ever have to get up and carefully attend to the stylusm, or be careful when transferring files from one place to another in case they get scratched. It's these processes and imperfection of the sound that makes the listening experience from vinyl so much better for so many people.

I wonder why no one prefers reel to reel or VHS to DVD? When we watch movies, most people demand 5.1, widescreen, HD video. You don't hear people remenecing about old youtube videos. I own alot of vinyl, having been born in the 70's. I also have new albums that I have bought. But I prefer the sounds of digital music, especially music that was CREATED digitally. To be honest, I can't tell the difference between a wav and an mp3 at 192. I have tested this with several different people, and no one I've met can tell the difference...(and we're musicians) So while I can agree with the large artwork and such, I wonder why these same people don't collect old Laser Disc movies and rave about the screen jumps and audio ripples present in good 'ol magnetic VHS...

vhs rules

what would boc's aesthetic be without super 8?

but you make a good point

  On 2/26/2010 at 9:29 PM, MadnessR said:

I wonder why no one prefers reel to reel or VHS to DVD? When we watch movies, most people demand 5.1, widescreen, HD video. You don't hear people remenecing about old youtube videos. I own alot of vinyl, having been born in the 70's. I also have new albums that I have bought. But I prefer the sounds of digital music, especially music that was CREATED digitally. To be honest, I can't tell the difference between a wav and an mp3 at 192. I have tested this with several different people, and no one I've met can tell the difference...(and we're musicians) So while I can agree with the large artwork and such, I wonder why these same people don't collect old Laser Disc movies and rave about the screen jumps and audio ripples present in good 'ol magnetic VHS...

actually there is a large portion of the younger generation that actually prefer the sound of their music being played from 128kbps MP3s on their shitty tinny mobile phone speakers. this would be analogous to people preferring old youtube videos

  On 2/26/2010 at 11:12 PM, oscillik said:

  On 2/26/2010 at 9:29 PM, MadnessR said:

I wonder why no one prefers reel to reel or VHS to DVD? When we watch movies, most people demand 5.1, widescreen, HD video. You don't hear people remenecing about old youtube videos. I own alot of vinyl, having been born in the 70's. I also have new albums that I have bought. But I prefer the sounds of digital music, especially music that was CREATED digitally. To be honest, I can't tell the difference between a wav and an mp3 at 192. I have tested this with several different people, and no one I've met can tell the difference...(and we're musicians) So while I can agree with the large artwork and such, I wonder why these same people don't collect old Laser Disc movies and rave about the screen jumps and audio ripples present in good 'ol magnetic VHS...

 

actually there is a large portion of the younger generation that actually prefer the sound of their music being played from 128kbps MP3s on their shitty tinny mobile phone speakers. this would be analogous to people preferring old youtube videos

uh, that's just because that's what they were brought up on - hence, that's what seems "normal" to them... so it only makes sense that they would prefer it. are you willing to debate that?

  On 2/26/2010 at 11:41 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 2/26/2010 at 11:12 PM, oscillik said:

  On 2/26/2010 at 9:29 PM, MadnessR said:

I wonder why no one prefers reel to reel or VHS to DVD? When we watch movies, most people demand 5.1, widescreen, HD video. You don't hear people remenecing about old youtube videos. I own alot of vinyl, having been born in the 70's. I also have new albums that I have bought. But I prefer the sounds of digital music, especially music that was CREATED digitally. To be honest, I can't tell the difference between a wav and an mp3 at 192. I have tested this with several different people, and no one I've met can tell the difference...(and we're musicians) So while I can agree with the large artwork and such, I wonder why these same people don't collect old Laser Disc movies and rave about the screen jumps and audio ripples present in good 'ol magnetic VHS...

 

actually there is a large portion of the younger generation that actually prefer the sound of their music being played from 128kbps MP3s on their shitty tinny mobile phone speakers. this would be analogous to people preferring old youtube videos

 

uh, that's just because that's what they were brought up on - hence, that's what seems "normal" to them... so it only makes sense that they would prefer it. are you willing to debate that?

I have never liked dolby noise reduction and I grew up with that shit...

for those vinyl lovers who love that warm sound...this is for you!

That is my debate. I was raised on Superman soundtrack and disco records on vinyl. That's what Christmas was all about, getting the vinyl Christmas albums out. I ripped the audio from those albums, I wish it didn't have all the surface noise. I recorded songs I loved on cassette tapes with fm noise and djs and commercials...

The argument I'm making is that:

I wonder why no one prefers reel to reel or VHS to DVD? When we watch movies, most people demand 5.1, widescreen, HD video. You don't hear people remenecing about old youtube videos. I own alot of vinyl, having been born in the 70's. I also have new albums that I have bought. But I prefer the sounds of digital music, especially music that was CREATED digitally. To be honest, I can't tell the difference between a wav and an mp3 at 192. I have tested this with several different people, and no one I've met can tell the difference...(and we're musicians) So while I can agree with the large artwork and such, I wonder why these same people don't collect old Laser Disc movies and rave about the screen jumps and audio ripples present in good 'ol magnetic VHS...

  On 2/27/2010 at 8:59 AM, ieafs said:

er, how can you reminisce about that's only a few years old?

 

i can guarantee you people will look back fondly on highly compressed video/images from online...

i was gonna say pretty much the exact same thing. imagine hipsters from the future acquiring an old ipod "wow, 128kbps mp3s! they sound so watery! so much personality!"

  On 2/27/2010 at 10:27 AM, xxx said:

Well, I can say this. My dad has an epic vinyl collection stretching to the 60's and because he is so particular and obsessive, these plates are about as good as they get. So, I'm plundering one night when I'm visiting on holiday and I ask to borrow some of the greats (Led Zeppelin, Jefferson Airplane, etc.) to transcode digitally.

 

My setup is by no means audiophile--Stanton turntable, Ortofon cartridge in top shape, Numark mixer, computer, standard RCA/1/4" jacks. I encode the vinyl to .wav and something just sounds off. I decide to burn to CD-R and take to the truck and they sound absolute cack. There are few pops or artifacts but the sound is thin and shitty as hell.

I ripped my Mum's old Rolling Stones compilation a few nights ago - the good late 60s stuff yeah? - and at times it sounds like that. Though I truly think it adds some degree of charm to it. I wouldn't listen to it non-stop like I would with a decent vinyl, but that kinda thin almost distorted sound IS the 60s in my opinion.

Just put on a Beatles compilation though and oh my God does Strawberry Fields sound amazing.

  On 2/27/2010 at 10:27 AM, xxx said:

… CD copy … 3,479 years ...

lol no, not at all. a vinyl will last much longer than a CD.

it's 2010, CDs are officially a pretty shit way to store digital audio compared to that other thing, networked computers. To ensure your data won't dissolve after time you need to clone it around every now and then. Which luckily is a very easy thing to do with audio files + the internet etc.

Karl Pilkington discusses vinyl:

  On 2/26/2010 at 6:39 PM, Greg Reason said:

OK I guess this makes me a lunatic or whatever but I don't buy that perception of music starts and finishes with our ears. Simply because our ears stop recognizing sounds somewhere above 20k does not mean that there is not another receptor in the human body that takes those frequencies in. Now of course you can write me off there because I'm not going to be able to pull out any axioms that can lend weight to what I'm saying. And of course now I'm not talking about hearing anymore so I guess we're straying from what sounds better. So I understand if you are happy to go with science and say well, hearing cuts off there, anything above that threshold is pointless. You can stop reading here.

 

The problem with science is that you tend to find what you're looking for. Look for waves and you find waves but look for particles and you get particles. People may have done fantastic experiments in regards to what is audible to the ear but were they looking for evidence of absorption in other parts of the body? Do we even have sufficient technology to determine this? So naturally I don't have the answers but I find it narrow-minded to simply assume the correctness of current science. All we need do is look back to see some of the stupid shit people have taken as Truth in the past to see what an error that is.

 

What I do know is that despite possible distortion, inappropriate handling, substandard playback devices and any/all other feasible faults that would prevent a vinyl LP from playing back the exact program, the medium offers significantly larger frequency response than CD. I'm sure most people simply do not care - in fact I'd wager that Sean and Rob don't give a fuck about this either - but it seems like a no-brainer to me that if all that extra stuff is present - whether we think we can hear/feel/experience it or not - then I would want to be listening to that version.

 

I'm not going to try and tell you that *every* record sounds better than disk. Some sound fucking horrible, to be frank. But some slay their CD counterparts. I'm sure most of this comes down to mastering but to be honest I don't trust my ears to the extent that I would want to tell someone that the extra information does nothing. I'm not going to lay this down as a benchmark but I know that Elliott Mazer only truly accepted digital audio when he was played music recorded at 192khz. Now his word is by no means law but he's sure been producing records a hell of a lot longer than I have. I still come to my own conclusions but it's interesting to hear someone with that much experience behind them say that.

 

But meh. I'm probably crazy and you probably don't care either way so I'll leave it there.

woot

i keed

you guys get girlfriends come back and then miss buying vinyl instead of tulips and tell me whose the boss

I can't tell from your post if you like vag over vinyl or vinyl over vag.

Either way you're wrong.

  On 3/10/2010 at 3:31 AM, Lube Saibot said:

Either way you're wrong.

you're absolutely right lol