drmatt wrote:
> I think they rarely go full scale DC for any number of samples on any
> recordings, they are pushing it too hot but it's compression not
> "distortion" as such, (though we choose to call it such because we are
> pedants..) so wouldn't see that level of distortion.
>
> Extreme
I think they rarely go full scale DC for any number of samples on any
recordings, they are pushing it too hot but it's compression not
"distortion" as such, (though we choose to call it such because we are
pedants..) so wouldn't see that level of distortion.
Extreme compression is pretty
emalvick wrote:
> "but if there isn't distortion and the music is good, I'm happy."
Right on!
Main system - Rock Solid with LMS 7.9.1 Official on WHS 2011 - 2 Duets
and Squeeseslave
Cabin system - Rock solid with LMS 7.9.1 Official on Win10 Pro - 1 RPi 3
Model B/Hifiberry DAC+
cliveb wrote:
> Just wanted to comment on a few of the issues you raise:
>
>
> Agreed. Despite its manifest flaws, vinyl can sound pretty damn good,
> but if it sounds better than the CD, it's because a better master has
> been used.
>
> However...
>
> This simply isn't true. It's perfectly
Just wanted to comment on a few of the issues you raise:
emalvick wrote:
> I've noticed plenty of examples where the vinyl sounds better than the
> CD and it isn't because vinyl is better, it's just the mastering.
Agreed. Despite its manifest flaws, vinyl can sound pretty damn good,
but if it
d6jg wrote:
> You are 100% correct about Loudness although Vinyl isnt totally immune
> from it, it is as you say much less likely to occur.
>
> As usual the Record Industry exploits those of us who rebel against
> Loudness by selling FLAC etc for much more than MP3. The only additional
> cost
emalvick wrote:
> The loudness war I think is a huge reason vinyl is popular with
> audiofiles (doesn't necessarily explain the hipster love of vinyl).
>
> I've noticed plenty of examples where the vinyl sounds better than the
> CD and it isn't because vinyl is better, it's just the mastering.
The loudness war I think is a huge reason vinyl is popular with
audiofiles (doesn't necessarily explain the hipster love of vinyl).
I've noticed plenty of examples where the vinyl sounds better than the
CD and it isn't because vinyl is better, it's just the mastering. About
the time digital
Dogberry2 wrote:
> What, you mean you don't prefer a high noise floor, terrible
> signal-to-noise ratio, plenty of hiss, wow and flutter, with
> continuously degrading wear and worsening sound every time you listen to
> an album? What are you, a heretic? Any vinyl cult follower will tell you
>
d6jg wrote:
> Most of the LPs were bought in the 70s & 80s and in many cases I can
> recall actually where and when I bought them. Not so for the CDs.
This is true for me too, for almost all my LPs! My LPs remain in pretty
good shape - and I never completely stopped buying vinyl. And with
Coming to this discussion late (I have been away).
Approx 30% of my Music Library is FLAC from meticulously digitised Vinyl
which has taken me nearly 10 years to complete.
69% is FLAC from from CD
Perhaps 1% is downloaded mp3/FLAC where I can't source physical
product.
Most of the LPs were
It's the inconvience and extra expense that really draws me back to
vinyl LOL!
2 CHAN. SYSTEM
SB3->Benchmark DAC-1-> Bryston(BP-25,3B)->PMC TB2
HOME THEATER SYSTEM
SB2-> Bryston(SP1,4B,4B,2B,2B)-> PSB Stratus Goldi
BASEMENT SYSTEM
Duet-> Parasound Preamp (carver M1.0t) ->Klipsch La Scala's
pablolie wrote:
> I retired my turntable a lng time ago. I only brought it out around
> ~2007 to digitize some albums that were never re-issued. I always took
> excellent care of my vinyl. But I digitized and then sent the turntable
> (technics SL1200, nothing exotic) back to a storage
I retired my turntable a lng time ago. I only brought it out around
~2007 to digitize some albums that were never re-issued. I always took
excellent care of my vinyl. But I digitized and then sent the turntable
(technics SL1200, nothing exotic) back to a storage location. And I
gifted it
Mnyb wrote:
> People much younger than me thinks vinyl i kind of hip hence its current
> comeback .
>
> I abamdoned it in the early 90s sometimes wonderng if i should take it
> up again as a nostalgig thing.
>
> My parents also gave up vinyl at the same time , but i do think must
>
JJZolx wrote:
> "LP playback system" ... A turntable? You can play CDs on a turntable
> now? That's pretty cool.
>
> Reading audiophile forums is how you get good playback of badly mastered
> CDs?
Pedantry will get you everywhere.
-Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk-
--
Hardware:
drmatt wrote:
> I am depressed to say that there's a secondary problem. Due to loudness
> wars so many CDs are so badly mastered that they probably benefit from
> the softening and flattering bass of an LP playback system.
"LP playback system" ... A turntable? You can play CDs on a turntable
I am depressed to say that there's a secondary problem. Due to loudness
wars so many CDs are so badly mastered that they probably benefit from
the softening and flattering bass of an LP playback system.
I'm starting to think the game is lost, home playback of high quality
music is dead, unless
mavit wrote:
> I kinda hope so. You can listen to a record using little more
> technology than a pin and a paper cone; if doing that becomes our best
> option again, some things have gone badly wrong.
People much younger than me thinks vinyl i kind of hip hence its current
comeback .
I
drmatt wrote:
> Vinyl will die when my parent's generation dies.
I kinda hope so. You can listen to a record using little more
technology than a pin and a paper cone; if doing that becomes our best
option again, some things have gone badly wrong.
Also,the local store dont have all I want nowadays , so they offer to
order .
But I can do that myself fro amazon or cdbaby and a zillion places.
Or do I really want to waits weeks to get the music , when there is a
flac download a minute away..?
cliveb wrote:
> The price of CDs, digital downloads (and vinyl LPs, for that matter) has
> little to do with production costs.
> It has everything to do with what the market can bear.
>
> If the price was governed by the cost of production and delivery, then
> FLAC downloads would cost no more
SlimChances wrote:
> Surely there is a much greater cost to produce and ship CDs to stores
> than to provide a download
Yes, you are correct. Store rental, inventory costs, worker costs,
stolen merchandise costs, etc. See
JJZolx wrote:
> With CDs you were never really paying for the physical media and
> packaging. I recall when CDs first became prevalent, there were claims
> that they'd lower the cost of buying albums, but that was never true.
> They came out and were actually more expensive than vinyl records.
iPhone wrote:
> .
> It is *-NOT-* just a perceived superior product, the FLAC File is
> lossless hence one is getting ALL the music they paid for whereas MP3 is
> a copy and a bad one at that with tons of missing actual music data.
You have misunderstood my point. I never said that FLAC isn't a
cliveb wrote:
> ..
>
> If the price was governed by the cost of production and delivery, then
> FLAC downloads would cost no more than the equivalent MP3.
> But they do cost more, because the customer is prepared to pay more for
> what they perceive to be a superior product.
.
It is
The price of CDs, digital downloads (and vinyl LPs, for that matter) has
little to do with production costs.
It has everything to do with what the market can bear.
If the price was governed by the cost of production and delivery, then
FLAC downloads would cost no more than the equivalent MP3.
SlimChances wrote:
> Surely there is a much greater cost to produce and ship CDs to stores
> than to provide a download
Hmm
Are you working for a distributor or have any more than std. Pub
knowledge about that?
I dont think so.
You didnt believe the backgrounds and the infrastructure involved
SlimChances wrote:
> Despite the quote below I don't have much use for vinyl.
>
> Vinyl is written in stone. I think if its made it for 120 years now,
> its here forever. Thats a beautiful thing to think about.
> Jack White
>
>
pablolie wrote:
> I tend to buy used CDs quite often these days (seldom new ones). I know
> it's a form of piracy, but it gives me a simple 16/44 flac at an
> unbeatable price with cover art. The music industry simply shoots itself
> in the foot again and again. If I was a big label, I'd offer
Yes the Bandcamp model is ideal. I sense that the artists get a good
portion of the sale as opposed to the record company model where the
label grabs most of the sale price. I wish other download sites followed
Bandcamps example. I was disappointed when CDBaby discontinued FLAC
downloads
pablolie wrote:
> I tend to buy used CDs quite often these days (seldom new ones). I know
> it's a form of piracy, but it gives me a simple 16/44 flac at an
> unbeatable price with cover art. The music industry simply shoots itself
> in the foot again and again. If I was a big label, I'd offer
I tend to buy used CDs quite often these days (seldom new ones). I know
it's a form of piracy, but it gives me a simple 16/44 flac at an
unbeatable price with cover art. The music industry simply shoots itself
in the foot again and again. If I was a big label, I'd offer 16/44
download from my
SlimChances wrote:
> Surely there is a much greater cost to produce and ship CDs to stores
> than to provide a download
Manufacturing cost was was not that much , I would say insignificant.
Pennies
Maybe more cost in selling in a brick and mortar store with people
involved.
Most of the price
JJZolx wrote:
> With CDs you were never really paying for the physical media and
> packaging. I recall when CDs first became prevalent, there were claims
> that they'd lower the cost of buying albums, but that was never true.
> They came out and were actually more expensive than vinyl records.
SlimChances wrote:
> Is $10 a reasonable price for an lossless album download or are we being
> ripped off. I would think the costs of producing and distributing an
> album for download are far lower than the costs of yesteryear.
With CDs you were never really paying for the physical media
I am not sad to see the CD go I just wish there was better availability
of music downloads at reasonable prices. Is $10 a reasonable price for
an lossless album download or are we being ripped off. I would think the
costs of producing and distributing an album for download are far lower
than
37 matches
Mail list logo
